Commenting on Matt 26 in NT1 and NT2, Thomas Wayment writes:
When compared side by side, it becomes readily apparent that the two translations of Matthew 26 differ significantly. Some verses were passed over without revision in NT1 while other verses were omitted from NT2. Significant wording additions in NT1 were not reflected in NT2, and revisions with historical and theological significance in NT1 are sometimes not even hinted at in NT2. Ultimately, these different versions demonstrate that the process of translation in the New Testament was closely connected with Smith’s efforts to edit the Bible for readability while at the same time attending to a variety of theological interests. Moreover, the changes confirm that Smith was not editing with a consistent plan or methodology in mind. This further suggests that the translation project had significantly expanded from its inception at Moses 1—when the plan seems to have been to bring the Bible into harmony with Smith’s recent revelations. Instead, Smith seems to have edited according to what he felt was important at the time that he was carrying out the translation of a particular passage.
The editing of Matthew 26:2 illustrates this well: “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.” Smith changed the archaic pronoun “Ye” in his June 1831 translation (NT1) but not in his September 1831 translation (NT2) of the same verse. Additionally, in the earlier translation the awkward “is betrayed to be crucified”—which accurately reflects the Greek word order and construction—is rendered into a clearer English causal statement “is to be betrayed and crucified.” Grammatically speaking, Smith’s rendition separates the act of betrayal from the act of crucifixion, whereas the Greek as rendered in the KJV connects the two events to that the act of betrayal leads to the crucifixion. The first revision, therefore, demonstrates an interest in grammatical issues whereas the later revision does not preserve any of these changes . . . there is clear evidence in the duplicate translation of Matthew 26 that at least one component of the translation process, particularly manifest in NT1, was to revise the books of the Bible to be in greater harmony with each other—especially with New Testament texts.
Examples of this editing process can be seen in several passages shown below, where angle brackets mark insertions or other revisions. For example, Smith significantly revised Matthew 26:26: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat <of it; and a commandment I give unto you, and this is the commandment which I give unto you, that as you see me do, you shall do likewise in remembrance of> my body.” The addition to the verse relies openly upon two phrases, one from the Gospel of John (“A new commandment I give unto you”) and one from the first epistle to the Corinthians (“this do in remembrance of me”). In at least one sense, the New Testament revision integrated an amalgamation of biblical texts. The Bible revision in these cases was an admixture of biblical passages and the language of Smith. Moreover, the apparent randomness of the process suggests that Smith drew upon his memory to aid him in the revision process. It is possible that he had his scribes searching for parallel passages in the Bible, although there is no surviving evidence to verify that he did so. (Thomas Wayment, “Intertextuality and the Purpose of Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible” in Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources, eds. Mark Ashurst-McGee, Robin Scott Jensen, and Sharalyn D. Howcroft [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 74-100, here, pp. 95-97)
Concluding his discussion of this issue, under the heading of “The Significance of the Duplicate Translations,” Wayment writes that:
Over time, Joseph Smith’s revision of the Bible developed into an expansive project that engaged new interests and approaches to the biblical text that were different from the project’s original goals. When Joseph and his scribes inadvertently translated the same passages twice, they fortuitously provided a window through which their goals and interests in revising the text may be viewed. From the surviving evidence, it appears that by the time the project reached the New Testament, Joseph had increased his interests to include an improvement of the readability of the KJV text, as well as a focused attention on providing descriptions of motive and reasons for which biblical characters acted in certain ways. (Ibid., 98)
One hopes that, in light of Wayment’s work on the JST, as well as the work of previous scholars (e.g., Robert J. Matthews), the naïve and simply false claim that the JST is a textual restoration of the Bible will be jettisoned and the JST will be approached by more Latter-day Saints in light of its true nature and expected function.
