In the KJV of Heb 6:1, we read:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
In the JST, we read something slightly different (emphasis added):
Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
While a superficial reading of Heb 6:1, divorced from chs. 1-5 of that great Epistle (Hebrews is my favourite biblical book, fwiw) can lead to think that the author is trying to relegate the importance of the basic teachings of the gospel, the Greek does not support such.
The Greek, Διὸ ἀφέντες ("therefore, leaving") means as the note to NET correctly states, "not of abandoning this elementary information, but of building on it." It should also be noted that there are no major textual variants to this verse.
Commenting on Heb 6:1, Joseph Smith once said:
Look at Heb. vi. 1 for contradictions—"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don't believe it. I will render it as it should be—"Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (History of the Church, 6:58)
In the version recorded by Willard Richards (15 October 1843), it reads:
The first principles of the gospel as I believe. first Faith. Repentance. Baptism for the remission of sins, with the promise of the Holy Ghost.
Heb 6th. contradictions "Leaving the principle of the doctrine of crist. if a man leave the principles of the doctrine of C. how can he be saved in the principles? a contradiction. I dont believe it. I will render it therefore not leaving the P. of the doctrin of crist. 5 &c. Resurrection of the dead & eternal judgment.
one thing to see the kingdom. & another to be in it. Must have a change of heart to see the kingdom of God. & subscribe the articles of adoption to enter therein.
no man can not receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations, The H. G. is a revelator.
Interestingly, before this time, Joseph Smith appealed to Heb 6:1 as it appeared in the KJV in support of baptismal regeneration:
"Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, and of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb. vi: 1-6).
These quotations are so plain, in proving the doctrine of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, I deem it unnecessary to enlarge this letter with comments upon them; but I shall continue the subject in my next. (History of the Church, 2:259)
One is reminded of Joseph Smith’s words vis-à-vis the words of Malachi and the coming of Elijah when he said “I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands . . ” (D&C 128:18)
In my view, it appears that Joseph Smith wished to clarify the meaning of the text, albeit, based on a sloppy misreading he may have engaged in, thus eliminating any possibility that it could be misrepresented as the author of Hebrews (whom he believed to be Paul) depreciating the first principles of the gospel.
With respect to the nature of the JST, one should note that even Joseph Smith himself did not believe it was a textual restoration of the "original" Bible. A good study of the JST I would recommend would be the article by Kent P. Jackson and Peter M. Jainski, The Process of Inspired Translation: Two Passages Translated Twice in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible published in BYU Studies, 42, no. 2 (2003), pp. 35-64 (online here), and, while it is a bit dated, Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (BYU Press, 1975) as good starting points. As Matthews notes, the text of the JST reflects many things, including:
· Restoration of original text
· Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible
· Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers
· Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations elsewhere in the Bible
· Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors.
Overall, I would agree with Kevin L.Barney in his commentary on Heb 6:1 that the JST "corrects a misimpression given by the KJV. The sense is not one of 'abandoning' the basics of the gospel, but of taking them as an established, given foundation and moving ahead and building on them."
Support Scriptural Mormonism
Support Scriptural Mormonism