I highly treasure the words of Scripture. So please don’t fault my sincere questions for why Joseph Smith crossed out English words and likewise inserted new words in the King James Version translation. The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament (Deseret, 2005), edited by Thomas Wayment, almost invites the reader to explore possible motivations behind the changes in the text.
I just finished John 1 yesterday in our Sunday morning study in Idaho Falls. Out of the possible interest that this might be to my LDS and evangelical readers, I would like recap some of my personal observations and questions in evaluating the JST in a side-by-side comparison with the KJV on John 1. Joseph Smith looked at this chapter close enough to cross out 83 words in the translation but also to add 301 words (numbers obtained only from a quick count). Why? How does this promote religious unity?
Some of the changes were to update the language with modern rules and expressions of English like changing “that” to “who” or “saith” to “said.” I don’t mind this. But some of the alterations in this first chapter of John’s Gospel are fundamentally significant, creating huge theological wedges between Mormon and evangelical neighbors.
For example, here is a sampling of seven (bold words are added by Joseph Smith to the text):
1. John 1:1 – Joseph removes the title of “Word” for Jesus and instead of saying “the Word was God,” revises the text, “and the Son was of God.”
2. John 1:13 – Joseph crosses out the first two words of the verse, “Which were,” and substitutes “He was.” (No wonder LDS friends don’t see gracious election of sinners in the chapter. It has been removed). Ogden and Skinner write in The Four Gospels (Deseret, 2006), “The Joseph Smith Translation indicates that Jesus Christ was born not through the normal process (‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man’—meaning, not through two mortal parents) but of God, with divine paternity of his mortal body” (78).
3. John 1:16 – Joseph scratches out the second two words of the “grace for grace” phrase in the KJV (yet the phrase is picked up and reiterated fully and repeatedly in D&C 93). If this seems a fluke, Joseph erases the first word of “grace and truth” in the next verse of John 1 but fully translates “grace and truth” in the description of the Only Begotten Son in Moses 6:52. In my estimation, this looks like a deliberate eradication of Scriptural phrases picked up in latter-day writings. How can latter-day revelation claim restoration of truth when it crosses out the truth already there?
4. John 1:18 – Part of the verse, except the last three words (which are really crucial to the doctrine of the unseen God), is scrunched back into verse 17. The JST of John 1:18 reads, “And no man hath seen God at any time; except he hath born record of the Son, for except it is through him no man can be saved.” Ogden and Skinner teach, “In other words, no human has ever seen God the Father in this telestial world except when he has come to earth to testify of his Son” (99). To LDS, the Son must not be the exclusive, visible exegesis of the Father (John 1:18) because the Father is the Man in the Messianic title, “Son of Man” (John 1:51).
5. John 1:27 – Actually, it appears in John 1:20-27, that Joseph Smith is trying to make sense of who Elias is. JST of John 1:27 has John the Baptist declaring, “He it is of whom I bear record. He is that prophet, even Elias, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, or whose place I am not able to fill: for he shall baptize, not only with water, but with fire, and with the Holy Ghost.” My first reaction was if Joseph changed these verses than he would need to change Matthew 11:14. Sure enough, my speculation proved accurate. Joseph Smith translated the verse first in Matthew as, “And if ye will receive me, I am Elias, which was for to come” (NT1). But the JST NT2 reading (considered more accurate by LDS) is “And if ye will receive it, verily he was the Elias, who was for to come and prepare all things.”
According to the JST, John is Elias but not the Elias of Malachi 4:5. But according the King James Translation, of course, John the Baptist is not Elijah (John 1:21), but he is the Elias predicted in the Prophets for he came “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:17). Do contemporary LDS actually claim error or at the least, contradiction, in the KJV text?
6. John 1:31 & 33 – The JST takes out the “not”. Why? Does the “not” create a problem? It shouldn’t. John the Baptist did recognize his human kinsmen (Matthew 3:14). Which family member would not observe the daily righteous living of Jesus of Nazareth growing up? It would be hard not to be envious. But John did not know that his kinsman was the Christ until His messianic anointing at the baptism. The baptism of Jesus was a pivotal event for John’s ministry.
7. John 1:42 – The JST translation adds, “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A seer, or a stone. And they were fishermen. And they straightway left all, and followed Jesus.” Does Kephas, or without the terminal suffix, kepha, really mean seer? Which Greek lexicon gives seer as the meaning of petros? Hmmmm. Things are really getting suspicious about what to believe in The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of John 1.
The modern perspective of JST bibliology in John 1 alters theology, christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology. Does this advance our trust in the reliability of Scripture and build our individual consciences in godly and ethical hermeneutics?
Please sense my spirit. I am praying that I can “engage without rancor.”
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
First of all, a technicality. The Joseph Smith Translation has not been canonized by the Church (for a variety of reasons). The King James Version has. That means that any of the changes that Joseph Smith made should be read as inspired commentary to the KJV more than as binding doctrine.
Considering that the Doctrine and Covenants (which is canonized) went through at least one major revision (the prior version was called the Book of Commandments), it is worth considering that had he lived, Joseph Smith might well have made major revisions to the JST as well, as his doctrinal understanding deepened in the later years of his life.
Now it seems to me that most of the JST changes are straightforward and easy to explain. Refusing to apply the term repent to God, for example. The other corrections and insertions have to be considered on a case by case basis, as a snapshot of his understanding circa 1832, much as we also consider his other uncanonized writings (as collected in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith for example).
Mark, first of all, is this the same Mark I know that is back from a blogging sabbatical? If it is . . . that is great . . . because I have lots to talk about. Btw, thanks for your considerate reading of all my entries.
And are there two Mark Butlers in bloggernacle?
_______________________
Mark wrote: That means that any of the changes that Joseph Smith made should be read as inspired commentary to the KJV more than as binding doctrine.
Has any LDS prophet made revisions to the JST? Does any contemporary Deseret commentary have the liberty in public print to disagree with the JST interpretation on a particular verse in a biblical book? Though not canonized, it apparently appears to me that the JST is on the same level, if not even more authoritative than the KJV to the average LDS on the streets. I hope to soon purchase the JST on Isaiah and do some comparison with the KJV.
Your thoughts?
Sorry to bring up a long-dead thread, but since no one answered, I’ll take a stab.
Actually, at least part of the JST has been canonized – the JST revision of Genesis which is now a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
As for the rest of it, the only portions the average LDS on the streets is likely to be aware of are the JST inclusions in the footnotes of the LDS KJV Bible and in an appendix sort of section toward the back of the book. So if you go and buy the entire JST, realize that not all of it made it into the footnotes of the standard LDS Bible and therefore, not all of it is really used by average Mormons.
Bruce R. McConkie was the apostle who campaigned to get parts of the JST included in the new LDS publishing of the Bible. Before then, the JST had been largely ignored. I do not believe any LDS authority has ever made any changes to the text, aside from selectively choosing what parts to include or exclude in the LDS Bible footnotes.
Seth, I need to read the Pearl of Great Price. I am ignorant of what Joseph has said about Genesis.
I am excited. Our church family just started an evening study in this first book.
Be aware that while the JST changes to much of the Bible are rather minor (such a Mark’s example of deleting the Lord “repenting”), there are a few rather radical inclusions, such as an entire Messianic prophesy by Joseph in Egypt on his deathbed that seems to reference not only Christ, but Joseph Smith himself and, of course, the Pearl of Great Price’s book of Moses, which is a rather radical revision of the book of Genesis.
So if the idea of the JST bugs you, the Book of Moses is sure to be the one that bugs you the most. For myself, I love the book and feel there is some really deep doctrine in there with far-reaching implications. Either way, have fun with it.
I actually looked up the original writing of Joseph Smith on John 1 here –> http://www.irr.org/mit/images/old%20images/jst-iv-jn1-1.gif
I was a little disappointed because I thought you made some strong arguments such as “grace for grace” being omitted but then later used in D&C.
However, JS actually replaced almost everything from John 1:16 and elongated it to included a rehashing of the “in the beginning.” I think it’s obvious he was omitting “grace for grace” because he thought that it wasn’t an inspired line, rather the semantic value of that entire verse was altered.
I would read duetaronamy 18 and then put Joseph Smith to the test. Was he a true prophet that might answer your question.
John 1:1 tells of the divinity if Christ and we have so many greek manuscripts of the New Testament today to prove it. But then Joseph Smith came along and changed it and made the deity of Christ as something else.
I know who my JESUS is. He is my King. My God. My friend. My Savior. He is God from the beginning and He became the Son by subjecting himself to the flesh and going to the cross for us. But he is always God.