The Nature of the Pen and Pencil Markings in the New Testament of Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible



In the years after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the manuscripts and the marked Bible associated with the New Translation remained in the possession of Emma Smith and later her son Joseph Smith III, despite efforts by Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, and others to acquire the documents. Eventually the manuscripts were loaned to and became part of the archival collection of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ).1

Concerns about the integrity of the manuscripts led to an 1868 statement by the School of the Prophets in Salt Lake City dismissing the recent RLDS publication of the translation.2 Although Robert J. Matthews’s groundbreaking study “A Plainer Translation” helped dispel the myths surrounding the accuracy of the text of the New Translation manuscripts, there has still been some concern over the exactness of the New Translation manuscripts and the marked Bible.3 Regarding the issue of possible later additions to the manuscripts and notations added to Joseph Smith’s marked Bible, the seemingly random pen and pencil markings in the manuscripts and the marked Bible should raise some legitimate questions.

The work of Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews has further clarified many of the concerns raised in previous generations of scholarship.4 Yet one important area in the study of the New Testament of the New Translation remains largely untouched—the markings the Prophet made when he transitioned from dictating the complete wording of the New Testament to merely marking an already printed Bible. Some of these notations were made in pen and some in pencil; the two sets of markings also used different systems of notation. Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews do not offer any solution to the origin and meaning of these notations in the New Translation manuscripts.5 In this article, we explain these pen and pencil markings, discuss the editorial procedures Smith followed after he and his scribes completed their initial pass of the New Testament, and examine some clues about the preparation of the manuscripts for publication.

Method, History, and Approach

To assess fully whether the manuscripts and marked Bible were altered after Joseph Smith’s lifetime, it is important to understand briefly how the process of translation, when known, occurred. Initially, the scribes wrote out the entire text of the Bible word for word as Smith dictated it. The small number of subsequent corrections that appear on the pages of the handwritten texts demonstrate that Smith dictated the Bible text with the changes already in place so the scribes would not have to write out the King James Version text and then make interlinear changes to it.6

Smith began the New Translation with Genesis, but shortly thereafter shifted to the New Testament. On March 7, 1831, he received a revelation: “And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter [Genesis 24], until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known” (D&C 45:60). The next day Smith began work on the New Testament.7

Adopting the same procedure they had used in the Old Testament, Smith and Sidney Rigdon immediately began working on the New Testament as the Lord had instructed. Now known as NT 1, Smith and Rigdon’s initial work followed the pattern established during the translation of Genesis. Later, John Whitmer was directed to make a copy of NT 1. This copy eventually became the living document and is now referred to as NT 2.8

On February 16, 1832, after translating John 5:29, both Smith and Rigdon beheld a vision that was later included as section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants. This vision establishes a firm date for the New Translation and suggests approximately when the shift occurred from writing out the entire text of the New Translation to making notations in the Bible and writing only the changed words on a separate sheet of paper.9 Joseph and Sidney altered their method to expedite the completion of the New Translation after finishing the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John. The system Smith used in marking the Bible is the primary focus of our research because this system opens a window into one of the few places where any potential alteration of the manuscripts can be studied in detail.10

Early Copies of the New Translation Manuscripts

The notation system of the marked Bible and how those markings correspond to the accompanying handwritten manuscripts have received passing attention from scholars. Without the aid of a critical edition of the text, we initially set out to unravel the seemingly complex system of pen and pencil notations in the marked Bible. We had hoped to be able to describe the method used and to arrive at some conclusion about the historical integrity of those texts based on our findings. Within twenty-three years of Smith’s death, three copies of the New Translation of the New Testament were completed, one of them by an LDS copyist (John M. Bernhisel, spring 1845) and two of them by RLDS copyists (Marietta Hodges Faulconer and Mark H. Forscutt, July 1866 to January 1867) in preparation for the RLDS publication of the translation in 1868 (figs. 1–3).11 Each of these copies creates a fixed point of comparison for our analysis.

The three copyists worked with the manuscripts for two distinct reasons. The copy made by Bernhisel is much more eclectic than the others, and at times he simply summarized the contents of the manuscripts rather than reproducing them exactly.12 Bernhisel made a private copy because of his own personal interests. However, he ended up circulating this copy among the Saints in the West. The Faulconer and Forscutt manuscripts were carefully completed copies that were later edited and corrected for grammar, punctuation, and spelling prior to publication.13

These three copyists preserved important reference points for studying the New Translation in the three decades after Smith’s death because they document how these early copyists found the text in their day. We cannot, unfortunately, account for the years the manuscripts were in the private possession of Emma Smith—between Joseph Smith’s death in June 1844 and the first printing of the text in 1868, although Bernhisel provides a reference point through his 1845 copy and summary.

We soon realized that each of these scribes found the text much like, if not exactly as, it appears today.14 The fact that each of these copies served to document the text for a new audience—such as the Saints in the West (Bernhisel), or to prepare the text for publication (Faulconer and Forscutt)—suggests there was no need to make emendations to the manuscripts or to the marked Bible, because any intentional changes could be introduced easily into the copies rather than to the original manuscripts.15 The two audiences would encounter only the copyists’ versions. Therefore, any changes to the original manuscripts would confuse later copyists and those who worked with the manuscripts.

Because there are no obvious alterations to the marked Bible and the accompanying manuscript pages, we wanted to determine if there were any other possible instances of textual emendations to the New Translation.

While evaluating the integrity of the copies of the New Translation manuscripts, we came to some important conclusions. First, Bernhisel’s transcript does not contain significant textual differences from what we have today. Second, after reviewing the Faulconer and Forscutt manuscripts, we discovered no plausible evidence that they marked the New Translation manuscripts in any significant way as they prepared their copies.16 Third, in the vast majority of instances in the Forscutt copy of the New Testament, the handwriting of the copyist seems to be the same as that of the corrector, suggesting that access to the manuscripts was limited to Forscutt and perhaps a few other individuals who made only minor notations in the copy, such as verse number insertions.17

Distinct copying errors in the Faulconer and Forscutt manuscripts were noted with a triple strikethrough, a row of x’s, or backslashes (\\\), to note text that should be removed.18 The ink of the copies also is an important factor because it is light brown, which did not appear consistent with the often darker black ink used on the New Translation manuscript pages.19 We were not able to note any physical similarities between any of the inks of the Faulconer and Forscutt manuscripts and the manuscripts of the New Translation, suggesting that these copyists did not make changes to the manuscripts during the copying process. We did, however, observe the use of a pencil in certain instances on the copies, which is noteworthy because of similar pencil markings found in Smith’s Bible.20

The copies appear to have received significant attention shortly after they were made, again implying that they were being corrected rather than the New Translation manuscripts. Parablepsia, which occurs when a scribe’s eyes jump to a different position in the text other than what he is copying, was noted by the copyist drawing a distinct hand pointing to where the missing text should be placed. The missing text was then copied on the back of the manuscript page with a similar hand pointing to the text that was to be inserted (figs. 4 and 5). This process clearly shows the text was reread for accuracy and that corrections to it were made directly on the copies. From this evidence, we concluded that the New Translation manuscripts were used to correct the Faulconer and Forscutt manuscripts and that the copyists did not intentionally mark on the New Translation manuscripts. This is important because there is no evidence the two copyists marked the manuscripts in any way; rather, they limited their corrections, notations, and changes to their own copies.21

To summarize our findings thus far, we concluded that it is nearly inconceivable to argue for any significant alteration of the New Translation manuscripts by Bernhisel, Faulconer, or Forscutt. Instead, the integrity of the manuscripts appears excellent. Therefore, we determined the pen and pencil markings were original to the New Translation manuscripts. We maintain the possibility that a few stray markings on the manuscripts may be the result of later hands, but the integrity of the text is largely unassailable as was partially demonstrated in our research on the Bernhisel, Faulconer, and Forscutt copies.22

Next, we considered the system of markings in the New Translation Bible and its relationship to the manuscript pages to determine what the Bible and accompanying manuscripts could tell us about the editorial process used on the manuscripts and whether Smith or others had edited the text again after he had revised the New Testament the first time.

The System of Notation in the Marked Bible

When Smith changed his approach from dictating the entire text of the Bible to dictating only the changes, he simultaneously began to mark his Bible in a way that provided a reference point for locating the exact position of the changes in relationship to the printed King James Version text. It was important that the insertion points were noted in the printed Bible; without some point of reference, many of the changes could have been placed in a variety of locations in the verse. For example, sometimes Smith changed only one instance of a word that was repeated in a single verse; without the marked Bible, it would have been difficult to determine which instance he intended to change. His notations—which eventually included a check mark with a line through it and a colon both at the beginning and at the ending where the change was to be inserted—were the key element in locating the inspired changes.

Initially, his method of marking the Bible and noting insertion points was not fixed, and there is clear evidence that the system of marking the Bible developed over the first few days after Smith shifted methods. In the first four instances where the Bible is marked, a short dash was inserted to the left of the verse (John 6:12, 16, 17, 19) and a change to three of those verses was dictated to a scribe.23 Even though the Bible clearly indicates which verses were being changed and the manuscripts contain unmistakable directions on the wording of those changes, it is not always clear where the changes were to be placed within the verse. To remedy the problem, Smith noted the ending point of the insertion with a dot in the first instance. He crossed out a word in the second instance, and he appears to have settled on identifying the third change through the use of a dot at the beginning and at the ending of the change (see fig. 6).

The next few changes noted in the marked Bible show equal fluidity in method. At John 6:25, a change is noted by two small check marks, one at the beginning and one at the ending of a word, but no notation appears at the beginning of the verse. The following verse has a distinct check mark at the beginning, and the change is noted by dots at the beginning and at the ending. This method of noting changed verses with a check mark and then indicating the location of changes through the use of a dot and later a colon became the dominant method of marking the Bible.24

Recognition of this system suggests an explanation for the otherwise unexplained note in Smith’s Bible, “one mark, for the print.” This note, which appears written in the margin underneath Romans 9:10, should perhaps read, “one mark, for the printer,” but because of space limitation due to the binding of the Bible, Smith was possibly unable to add the final “er” to “printer” (see fig. 8). We believe Smith was trying to designate which marks in the Bible were intended to identify verses to be changed in the New Translation. Otherwise, the reader, the printer, or both could become confused by the wide array of seemingly random markings in the Bible. By the time Smith began working through the New Testament for a second time, the original pen notations likely had begun to bleed through the pages, and shifting to a pencil may have been the logical choice to avoid this problem (see fig. 9).

Comparing both pen and pencil marks in Smith’s Bible reveals what appear to be two distinct but interrelated systems of marking the printed Bible. One system—represented by the pen markings—is fairly well developed, but it is disrupted by what appears to be another system of notation, represented by the pencil markings, which typically employ a check mark, although there is some fluidity in method. From this we concluded that the initial system shows some development in the first chapters of the Gospel of John after chapter six and becomes more standardized thereafter. The same system spans the entire New Testament from John 6 through Revelation 22, but a more static system of pencil notation exists alongside the first system of notation. With very few exceptions, the verses marked in pencil in the Bible are written in the manuscripts’ margins or above other lines of text and are clearly secondary to the first dictation of the text of the New Translation.

It is possible that whichever system is determined to be secondary was introduced by the original editor, in this case Smith, or it may have been added later by a scribe or scribes. Fortunately, the 1845 Bernhisel copy becomes an important terminus ante quem for the alterations, because the copy firmly fixes the majority of the text and preserves passages from both the original dictation and what we interpret as being a second pass by Smith himself.25 In other words, if the Bernhisel copy had preserved only passages that were marked with a check mark and a colon, the markings that were made during the first pass of the New Testament, then we could conclude that they were original and the other markings were later than 1845. But this is not the case.

If, for reasons that will become obvious later, we assume that the pen notations in the marked Bible generally represent the first pass of the New Translation and that the pencil notations represent a second pass, then we can paint a fairly complete picture of the process by which the New Translation of the New Testament was completed. In the process of our physical inspection of the manuscripts, we discovered that some of the pen markings might also have resulted from the second pass of the New Translation manuscripts because of the way they appear on the manuscripts.

In the marked Bible, we categorized every verse and indicated whether it contained any type of marking in pen or pencil, the writing instruments used in the manuscripts after John 6:1. We then compared those verses with the written manuscripts to determine what relationship, if any, existed between them. In almost every instance, the pencil markings in the Bible represent obvious additions to the written manuscripts after the original dictation, and the pen markings represent the text as it was recorded in the original dictation.

How this appears to have worked is that the changes made to the New Testament (NT 2—the portion covering John 6 through Revelation) were dictated to scribes over the course of about a year and a half. The scribes recorded the original dictation in pen while creating a rudimentary format for the manuscripts. The scribes added chapter headings, verse notations, and titles of the New Testament books. Perhaps not long after reaching the end of the book of Revelation, Smith and his scribes returned to John 6, where they began correcting the manuscripts, doing an entire, although quick, second pass of the New Testament.

The original dictation26 was copied with fairly wide left and right margins on the handwritten manuscripts, as well as large spaces, particularly above and below the chapter headings.27 When the second pass was made, additional corrections were inserted into those available spaces. These insertions are typically written in pen on the handwritten manuscript pages. When they are compared directly with the markings in Smith’s Bible, we see the vast majority noted in the Bible in pencil instead of pen. This confirms that the pencil markings in the Bible are from the second stage of the New Translation and are original to Smith and his scribes because additional inspired textual changes are clearly introduced and the scribes who worked on the original dictation are the same ones who copied the second dictation. Aside from the change in writing instruments from pen to pencil, we were unable to note any other variation in method during the second dictation.

The first instance of this type of secondary change occurs at John 7:3–4, where the change is noted in pencil in the Bible and where a later change is added to the manuscripts: “there” is added to John 7:3 and “but” is added to John 7:4.28 This type of correction of the manuscripts occurs again at John 8:1–2, where a note is added concerning the first word of 8:1. The marked Bible has the change in pencil at John 7:53, which directly precedes the change indicated for 8:1.29 This type of change occurs again at John 9:29 and then sporadically until the end of the book of Revelation. After completing the New Testament, Smith returned to Genesis and completed the Old Testament, where a similar set of pencil markings is also evident.

A Second and Possibly a Third Pass

The simple fact that the first marking in the Bible is in pen (John 6:12) likely indicates the pen markings are earlier than the pencil markings, although pencil markings also appear in that chapter. John 7:3–4 is just one example among many that holds the definitive clues: This passage contains an obvious later addition to the handwritten manuscripts, and this addition is noted in the marked Bible in pencil. A distinct check made in pencil precedes the verse in the marked Bible. As illustrated in figure 7, the manuscripts here have an obvious addition placed at the right of the original verse number in the margin.

We propose that the New Translation of the New Testament was carried out as follows. First, as other scholars have already noted, Smith dictated John 6:1 to Revelation 22:21 to Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and another scribe.30 Second, Smith went through the New Testament a second time, making changes, corrections, and alterations to the previous work. Finally, a scribe may have gone through the text a third time, primarily making minor punctuation and spelling changes to the text but not to the marked Bible. Because the people who worked on the two stages are the same, we propose that the second pass to the New Testament was carried out immediately following the first.

After we identified all passages that are clearly secondary to the original dictation—made obvious because they are written on the manuscript pages in the margins and other blank spaces—we noted several characteristics that indicate two distinct corrections were made to the New Translation manuscripts of the New Testament. The following features stand out as characteristics of what we have labeled the second pass or manuscript review.

1. Most changes are made in pen to the manuscripts and are noted in pencil in the marked Bible.

2. The changes are almost always inserted in the available blank spaces on the manuscripts.

3. The pinned-on notes in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon belong to this editing because they also fulfill criterion 1.31

4. Marks were inserted in Smith’s Bible to facilitate printing and to correspond to the practice of marking all changed verses with a check mark with a line through it or a dot at the beginning.32

5. Some changes are noted in the Bible but not in the manuscripts, perhaps revealing further considerations made during the second pass that were never introduced as changes.

6. The insertions and pinned-on notes in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams probably belong to this second pass because of their sequential relationship to the pinned-on notes in Sidney Rigdon’s handwriting.

The following passages fit one or more of these criteria and belong to a second pass of the manuscripts: John 6:50; 7:3–4; 7:53–8:1; 9:29; 12:7; 19:29; Acts 4:21; 7:59; 21:25; Romans 5:3; 6:5 (unknown handwriting); 1 Corinthians 2:11, 15, 17; 10:11; 12:31; 14:34–35; 15:37; 2 Corinthians 3:4, 16; 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:10; 2 Timothy 2:5; 3:13; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 3:3; 4:12; 9:27–28; 1 Peter 5:13; 1 John 3:18, 21; 4:3; and Revelation 17:17.

Furthermore, the following passages belong to notes that were pinned to the manuscripts and are in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon: John 12:7; Romans 8:29–30; 13:1, 4, 6–8; 14:14–15; 15:5, 15, 24; and 1 Corinthians 4:3–4; 5:3–4, 12. The insertions and pinned-on notes in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams are John 14:3; 19:29; Acts 3:12; 17:27, 31; 22:30; Romans 1:9, 17–21, 28; 4:16; 7:15–25; and 1 Corinthians 1:1. Each of these passages contains clear evidence that every correction was written after the original dictation. The marked Bible was carefully corrected to reflect these additional passages that were originally intended to be part of the New Translation.

Subsequent to the second pass of the manuscripts, there also may have been later changes made to the manuscripts to prepare them for publication, but these marks cannot be dated using the criteria employed in this study. Typically not noted in the marked Bible, these changes are characterized by corrections to the manuscripts and focus on grammar, punctuation, and other publication concerns.


Several important conclusions can be reached from the above data. First, we were unable to find any significant evidence that the New Testament New Translation manuscripts were altered after Joseph Smith’s death. It is apparent that Smith did have time to edit and complete the manuscripts before he left Ohio. There has been a concern that he did not finish the New Translation, but his careful editing of the manuscripts provides a clear indication that his work had shifted entirely from “translating” the Bible to correcting and clarifying the work he had already completed. The scribes who worked on the editing of the manuscripts—Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, and the unidentified Scribe A—suggest that the revision of the manuscripts was carried out early, perhaps immediately after the manuscripts were declared completed on July 2, 1833, although certainly within Smith’s lifetime and while the above mentioned scribes remained in the Church. Furthermore, we think it appears the work was done while these men were still in Ohio.33

Second, it is clear that as early as 1832 Smith already had a keen eye toward the eventual publication of the manuscripts. The second pass of the manuscripts clarifies many of the Bible markings and provides directions for the printer in several important examples. These notations indicate the importance the marked Bible played in the publication of the New Translation. Eventually the marked Bible became essential in locating the position of the New Translation changes. The marked Bible is perhaps more important for the printer, a realization that became obvious in the second pass, because it indicates exactly where the changes were to be inserted. Without the marked Bible, the printing of the text after John 6 would have been nearly impossible.

Finally, a minor third pass shifts toward copyediting issues. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation were addressed in this final pass, again suggesting Smith was preparing for publication. The focus of this stage was to prepare the manuscripts for publication, whereas the second pass had been aimed at preparing the Bible and the manuscripts. As we come to understand the New Translation and the processes under which it was completed, we realized that the facsimile edition34 has proven to be indispensable and that a critical text of the New Translation would be an invaluable resource. Although Smith later translated and edited other texts, such as the Book of Abraham, our understanding of the processes that these texts went through are not nearly as detailed as our knowledge of the history of the New Translation. Perhaps future studies will show that when Smith translated texts he also edited them using similar methods.

In the end, we concluded that the marked Bible and accompanying New Testament manuscripts have faced no significant alteration during the past two centuries, although more study on the few stray markings may shed further light on their origins. Those individuals who worked with the manuscripts after Smith’s death apparently did not mark the manuscripts or the Bible in any significant way, even though a few random marks may be attributed to them. Importantly, no additions of words or phrases can be attributed to the copyists of the New Testament portion of the New Translation. We believe the New Translation of the New Testament has been preserved in much the same condition as Smith left it at his death. Although he may have had some intention to correct the New Translation further before publication, the marked Bible preserves the text as he recorded it in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1831 to 1833.

About the author(s)

Paul W. Lambert is a program administrator for the International Fellowship Program at National Defense University in Washington D.C. He holds a BA in American Studies from BYU.

Thomas A. Wayment is Associate Professor in Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. He holds a PhD in New Testament Studies from Claremont Graduate University. He is the author of numerous books on the New Testament as well as The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament: A Side-by-Side Comparison with the King James Version (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005).

The authors thank Kent P. Jackson for his careful review and insightful suggestions on a draft of this article. Any errors that still remain, however, are ours. We also would like to thank Ron Romig, archivist for the Community of Christ, for his encouragement and patience with us; his insights were crucial for piecing together the relationships that existed between the later copies and the original manuscripts.


1. Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation”: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible; A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1975), 103–4.

2. School of the Prophets Salt Lake City Minutes 1868, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City. See Thomas E. Sherry, “Changing Attitudes toward Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible,” in Plain and Precious Truths Restored: The Doctrinal and Historical Significance of the Joseph Smith Translation, ed. Robert L. Millet and Robert J. Matthews (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1995), 187–226; Thomas E. Sherry, “Attitudes, Practices, and Positions toward Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A Historical Analysis of Publications 1847–1987” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1988); Reed C. Durham Jr., “A History of Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1965), 254–55; Thomas A. Wayment, ed., The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament: A Side-by-Side Comparison with the King James Version (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), xii.

3. Compare Durham, “History of Joseph Smith’s Revision.” Throughout this work, Durham argues against the integrity of the New Translation manuscripts, although he did not specifically note concerns about the pencil markings. Interestingly, the Bernhisel copy, which contains the majority of the New Translation texts and was made in spring 1845 in Nauvoo, should have settled concerns over the accuracy of the text because of its early copying of the original manuscripts.

4. See Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, 2004), 1–13, 29–48; Robert L. Millet, “Hard Questions about the Joseph Smith Translation,” in Millet and Matthews, Plain and Precious Truths Restored, 147–51; Robert J. Matthews, “Questions and Answers Pertaining to the Joseph Smith Translation,” in Millet and Matthews, Plain and Precious Truths Restored, 179–80.

5. Some passages were dictated to and recorded by an unidentified scribe, who was designated as Scribe A by Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews in Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 4. Those passages are 2 Thessalonians 2:7–9; Hebrews 6:1–8, 7:27, 9:28, 11:1; James 1; 1 John 1:1–3:8; and Revelation 1:1–16.

6. See Matthews, “Plainer Translation,” 39.

7. John Whitmer recorded that he, Rigdon, and Smith began working on the New Testament on March 8, 1831. See Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 155.

8. NT 1 contains Matthew 1:1 to 26:71. NT 2 contains a copy of NT 1 plus a transcription of the rest of the changes made to the New Testament. From a notation in the manuscripts, it seems John Whitmer copied the New Testament texts as Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon completed them. For example, at Matthew 9:1, John Whitmer noted that he had “transcribed” the text to that point, and then he dated the manuscript (April 7, 1831). Whitmer’s reference to transcribing the text helps establish the development and relationship of the two New Testament manuscripts—NT 1 (the original) and NT 2 (the copy and later living text). See Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 156.

9. The actual shift may have occurred several days later, since the formal shift took place at John 6:1, eighteen verses after the revelation of Doctrine and Covenants 76 came at John 5:29.

10. Compare Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 57–59.

11. Matthews, “Plainer Translation,” 117, 143. See also Ronald E. Romig’s “The New Translation Materials since 1844,” in Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 29–40, which provides a careful discussion of the history of the manuscripts after Smith’s death.

12. Matthews, “Plainer Translation,” 117–18, 143. The Bernhisel copy was made in spring 1845. While visiting Emma Smith, John M. Bernhisel was permitted to see the New Translation materials, both the marked Bible and the original manuscripts. Bernhisel maintained possession of these materials for approximately three months, during which time he copied annotations from the marked Bible into his own, attempting to replicate Joseph’s markings.

13. Faulconer’s copy included only Genesis through Psalms, so it was not as relevant to our study as Forscutt’s.

14. A less positive assessment is expressed in Matthews, “Plainer Translation,” 144–65.

15. Some verse numbers are added to NT 2 in pencil that may represent a second pass of the text. It is possible that these numbers were added years later, but they could likewise belong to the third pass of the manuscript done under Smith’s direction.

16. We noted that both Faulconer and Forscutt, along with the subsequent correctors of those manuscripts, were very careful to consistently note insertions in their own texts using the insertion point “^” below a line. This type of notation is rare in the Bernhisel and the Forscutt copies, but obvious identification of correction does occur in Forscutt’s text at 1 Corinthians 6:12 and is written in pencil. These insertion points were made during the process of editing the manuscripts after they were initially copied.

17. Kent Jackson argues that Joseph Smith III was the final editor of the manuscripts and that his markings are found in addition to Faulconer’s and Forscutt’s markings. However, Jackson’s argument is based upon the Old Testament manuscripts. In the New Testament manuscripts, the notations appear to be in the handwriting of Forscutt. See Kent P. Jackson, The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, 2005), 20–28.

18. Some corrections were made in the process of copying, and these were usually noted with the correct text being written directly over the error. Because of some confusion over the relationship between the manuscripts—OT 1 (the first manuscript of the Old Testament beginning with Genesis), OT 2 (a copy of OT 1 including the portions after OT 1 and ending with Malachi), NT 1 (the first manuscript of the New Testament; Matthew 1:1–26:71), and NT 2 (a copy of NT 1 and continuing through Revelation)—it appears that at times Faulconer and Forscutt inadvertently copied sections in the wrong sequence. These errors are noted in their copies using a huge x to delete the entire page. Careful descriptions of OT 1, NT 1, OT 2, and NT 2 can be found in Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 77–81, 155–57, 231–34, 301–4, 585–90.

19. Some of the ink in the marked Bible has also faded to a brown color, particularly where it has bled through the pages. The two brown inks, however, visually appear to be from different sources.

20. Pencil markings on the copies were limited to four instances. First, verse numbers were inserted or changed after the initial copying was done. Second, punctuation was added at times. These appear to be distinct notations made to prepare the text for publication. The punctuation appears to have been added after the initial copy, further suggesting that the copyists did not mark the original New Translation manuscripts. Third, “Son of Man” was corrected so the lowercase m is altered to an uppercase M. This finding shows the copyists found the lowercase m on the manuscripts in the phrase “Son of man.” However, RLDS publications contain a capital M, suggesting that copyists changed the reading in their copies but did not bother with changing it in the manuscripts. See The Inspired Version (Independence, Mo.: Herald Publishing House, 1991). Fourth, ampersands (&) were spelled out as “and.”

21. We noted two different hands involved in correcting the copies, one that used pen and one that used pencil. The copyist who used pen made no attempt to hide or obscure his work, but instead the changes are clearly marked. The copyist who used pencil to correct the manuscripts corrected the text in only a few instances, which are largely limited to issues of grammar and versification.

22. In Matthew 2 of NT 1, “Ch1)” and also “(17)” are written in blue on the copies. These chapter and verse identifications are probably later additions to the copies. Some similar red pencil markings also appear, but these are quite rare. Although blue and red pencil markings do not appear on the copies of the manuscript where Smith began marking his Bible and dictating the changes, these colored markings do appear in those portions where the entire text was being copied. The reason for this is that in the manuscripts that correspond to the marked Bible, the chapter and verse designation are part of the dictation.

23. At John 6:12, the Bible is marked to indicate the beginning (a dash) and the ending (a dot) positions of the changed wording. John 6:16 contains a dash at the beginning of the verse, but it does not contain any change in the manuscript. At John 6:17, the New Translation change is noted in the Bible by the cross out of a word, and a small dash appears to the left of the verse number, while at John 6:19 the insertion point is identified with a dot at the beginning and the ending.

24. The first use of a colon to make the insertion point in the Bible appears at John 6:40. Thereafter, Smith gradually began marking his Bible with a colon at the beginning and at the ending of changed passages. See John 7:45 for the first instance.

25. It has been common for some time for scholars to argue that the manuscripts of the New Translation were edited throughout Smith’s lifetime, including during the Missouri and Nauvoo periods. We, however, argue that the primary editing of the manuscripts took place during the Ohio period, between 1831 and 1833, although there may have been some very limited corrections made to the manuscripts but not the marked Bible after 1833. See Matthews, “Plainer Translation,” 97. Richard Howard states that excerpts from Genesis 7 included in an 1843 printing of Times and Seasons did not include all Joseph Smith’s later revisions, thus supporting the argument for a second pass. Richard P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development (Independence, Mo.: Herald Publishing House, 1969), 154. Kent P. Jackson was the first to argue against this common assumption. Kent P. Jackson, “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible,” Religious Educator 6 (2005): 156–57.

26. The original dictation using the original notation system took place between February 16, 1832, and July 31, 1832. The second pass is likely referred to in a statement from Frederick G. Williams, dated February 2, 1833, where he notes: “This day completed the translation and the reviewing of the New Testament.” Kirtland Council Minute Book, 8, Church History Library, cited in Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 59.

27. Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 51, state the opposite, i.e. that there is little space on the manuscript pages for scribal insertions, without qualification. Their conclusion is based on the pages where the entire text is written out, whereas the pages that accompany the marked Bible do contain significant blank spaces and, therefore, room to write in further changes.

28. For the exact location of these changes, see Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 459; Wayment, Complete Joseph Smith Translation, 241–43.

29. It may be that the notation in the marked Bible is mistakenly placed at John 7:53 rather than at 8:1, where the change is to take place. However, the final word of 7:53 directly precedes the insertion of “and” at 8:1, so the notation could take place either at 8:1, if Smith intended it to begin that verse, or at the end of 7:53, if he viewed the addition as a change to 7:53. After the change, it reads, “And every man went unto his own house, and Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.” See Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation, 459.

30. Some other passages also appear in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and an unidentified scribe.

31. The New Translation manuscripts contain several notes that are written on small scraps of paper and are literally pinned onto the foolscap paper of the manuscripts. These notes generally are longer insertions that would not fit into the margins of the manuscripts, so the notes were written out and pinned into position according to the text being changed.

32. 1 Corinthians 6:12 is an example of a correction being made to the system of marking the Bible and where the manuscripts contain a passage from the first dictation. The notation made at the end of Romans 9:10, “one mark, for the print[er],” would also point in this direction.

33. Joseph Smith left Ohio on January 12, 1838. The shift from pen to pencil may indicate a physical change in location or simply a change in the instrument of writing. There is no definitive evidence suggesting that the Prophet undertook a significant revision of the New Translation after the Ohio period, and therefore it seems more likely that the revisions were done prior to 1838. Because Smith used an inkwell pen, the marked Bible may have immediately shown signs of the ink bleeding through the paper. The shift to a pencil, therefore, may simply be a recognition that the pen markings were making a mess of the printed Bible, thus pushing the date closer to the early 1830s rather than nearer to the time when the Prophet departed from Ohio.

34. Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation.


Purchase this Issue

Share This Article With Someone

Share This Article With Someone

Print ISSN: 2837-0031
Online ISSN: 2837-004X