A Recovered Resource The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Commercial break served with refreshments:

Post by Shulem »

I interrupt our regular program to provide links for those who are interested in listening to podcasts compliments of Bill Reel of Mormon Discussions and Radio Free Mormon:

Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, Ancient Scripture wrote: A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation

Among the more compelling examples are two that witness the omission of entire biblical verses or the rearrangement of parts of biblical verses. In Colossians 2:20–22, Smith rearranges the KJV order so that a portion of verse 22 (“which are after the doctrines and commandments of men”) is appended directly to the end of verse 20, a verse which ends with a comma in the KJV. This change appears to directly reflect Adam Clarke’s statement regarding it, “After the commandments and doctrines of men? These words should follow the 20th verse, of which they form a part; and it appears from them that the apostle is here speaking of the tradition of the elders.” The change does little to smooth out the flow of the English translation, and does nothing to change the meaning, but it can be no mere coincidence that the two sources relocate a portion of the verse in precisely the same way by adding a part of one verse to another verse earlier in the same passage.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Example #2

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Fri May 19, 2023 9:00 pm
The authors of Producing Ancient Scripture then provide an example to show how whole text found in the KJV is omitted in Joseph Smith’s translation -- an entire verse of scripture is wiped out! Would the Holy Spirit have whispered into Joseph’s ear to omit an entire verse? Was the omniscient Spirit of God enlightening Smith’s mind with a knowledge of things that don’t belong in the record? Or could it be that Adam Clarke was the one responsible for enlightening the unlearned Smith with academic things in which he had no idea?
Shulem wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:56 pm
Example #2

Omitting the parenthetical comment of an ENTIRE verse!

But wait, there’s more! :o

And now to drop the other show compliments of the authors of Producing Ancient Scripture whereby we learn that the prophet Joseph Smith duped himself in failing to understand the full implications of what Adam Clarke was suggesting in his commentary prior to Smith hacking out a whole verse from Luke with his spiritual machete.

Smith’s translation omits the verse in its entirety. In this instance, however, Smith or Rigdon may have misread Clarke’s intent, who noted that the omission was attested in inferior manuscripts such as Bezae (now commonly referred to as D) and some Latin manuscripts (Clarke’s “Itala”). Clarke did not explicitly spell out the implicit conclusion that the parenthetical aside of Luke 19:25 was included in the more reliable manuscripts.

But as it was, Smith hacked out a whole verse from Luke just as he hacked off the snout of Anubis’s face from the lead plate of Facsimile No. 3 and then lied about it before publishing his bogus statement about the Egyptian god being a slave.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Example #3

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:57 pm
Example #3

Hebrew Unicorn


Isaiah said that unicorns will come down with cattle to meet their fate:
Isa 34:7 KJV wrote:And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
But what is a “uniciorn”? What was Smith to think when he was about to change the KJV to the JST? Smith’s understanding would likely correspond to the 1828 Webster Dictionary:
Webster 1828 wrote:U’NICORN, noun [Latin unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Hmmm. Rhinoceros? I have to think that Smith must have been sorely intrigued with this and sought clarification. So, time to check Adam Clarke and see what he says! Smith knew that Adam Clarke understood the Hebrew language and would depend on him for what he has to say. Smith didn't know Hebrew. His meetings and lessons with instructor Joshua Seixas would not occur for several more years. Smith had therefore a very limited knowledge of Hebrew and must have relied on Adam Clarke's commentary for clarification and glean information thereby:
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:The unicorns shall come down - ראמים reemim, translated wild goats by Bishop Lowth. The ראם reem Bochart thinks to be a species of wild goat in the deserts of Arabia. It seems generally to mean the rhinoceros.
Little wonder, Smith stole Adam Clark’s “reem” which is the translation for “unicorn”. Where else would have Smith had learned such a thing? How did Smith pick up on the Hebrew if he had not gleaned it from Clarke?
Isa 34:7 JST wrote:And the reem shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

The authors of Producing Ancient Scripture make it quite clear that the only known source in which Smith could have picked up the transliteration “reem” at that time is from the Clarke Commentary. Smith’s study of Hebrew came years later and transliterations of that word were different than the one Smith adopted into Isaiah. I view Clarke’s Commentary as a bullseye for identifying Smith’s unicorn! It serves as the only known evidence in proving that Smith relied on Clarke in making changes and interpreting difficult words in the Bible.

But notice the penmanship of Frederick G. Williams’ “Re-em” (re’em or reëm) is transcribed with a hyphen:

Isaiah 34:7 JST wrote:Verse 7 Re-em

You will recall that Adam Clarke’s commentary does not have the hyphen in its version of the word “reem.” So why does the scribe give it a hyphen if information was being gleaned and copied from Clarke? The answer is simple, because Smith dictated and the scribe wrote according to his pleasure! Now compare how the JST via Rigdon likes to add a hyphen (-) for no apparent reason:

Gen 23:2 KJV wrote: Sarah died in Kirjatharba
Gen 23:2 JST wrote: Sarah died in Kirjath-arba

Sidney Rigden was the penman and elected to add a hyphen to Kirjatharba for whatever fancy purpose he designed. Rigdon changed the KJV name from Kirjatharba to Kirjath-arba which suggests he took license in doing what he wanted with the likes of a hyphen. Rigdon also adds a hyphen in shoe-latchet (Gen 14:23) in the JST manuscript wherein the KJV has none. It seems when it comes to hyphens, Rigdon was footloose and fancy free.

One note of particular interest is the pencil marks flanking the word “unicorns” found in the actual KJV Bible (Isaiah XXXIV.7) utilized by the prophet for his biblical revision. Although the footnote “m” next to unicorns refers to Psalms 22:21 where changes were made to the biblical text of the new translation but the word unicorn was preserved:

Psalms 22:21 KJV wrote:Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

*Note: “from the horns” is encircled with a pencil indicating some kind of significant change was in order as follows in the JST:
Psalms 22:21 JST wrote:Save me from the lion’s mouth, for thou hast heard me speak from the secret places of the wilderness through the horns of the unicorns.

So, the change made in Psalms has nothing to do with what a unicorn is but that one may speak from the secret places of the wilderness *through* the horns of the unicorns.

:lol:

But wait, there’s more! Recall that Fredrick G. Williams was found responsible for adding a hyphen to re-em in the biblical revision manuscript when Clarke’s version of the word was without one. How might that compare with the Egyptian translation manuscripts in which Smith translated the Book of Abraham? Do you suppose Williams added a hyphen when others did not?

Yes. See here, because everyone loves a parallel:

Fredrick G. Williams wrote: Manuscript– A

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham; and the daughter of Zep-tah
Warren Parrish wrote: Manuscript-B
Manuscript-C

The land of Egypt being first discovered, by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Zeptah
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Reem vs. Re-em

Post by Shulem »

Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:The unicorns shall come down - ראמים reemim, translated wild goats by Bishop Lowth. The ראם reem Bochart thinks to be a species of wild goat in the deserts of Arabia. It seems generally to mean the rhinoceros.

For all intents and purposes, Reem & Re-em is essentially the same thing as far as Smith and Williams were concerned -- with or without a hyphen. Hyphens, dashes, and spaces within word construction (whether loose or tight) varied within the sundry manuscripts in which scribes wrote according to dictation that fell from the prophet’s lips.

Apologists who refuse to accept Clarke as the source in which “reem” was gleaned are left holding an empty bag because they have no other source or document to point at in which to claim. But the simple fact that apologists are so apt to deny Clarke and pin their hopes on some other unknown source is an admission that Smith was borrowing from someone, anyone other than God himself whispering in Joseph’s ears and saying, “The word is “Re-em.” But we know God was not that source whereby the “unicorn” is mentioned a total of nine times in the Bible and yet Smith only corrected one of them. Thus, unicorns live on in Joseph Smith’s new translation.

In fact, the unicorns live on in the revelations of Joseph Smith who quotes Deuteronomy 33:17:

Joseph Smith, 1832 wrote:“Manuscript History of the Church”

For his glory, the firstlings of his bullock, and his horns, the horns of Unicorns: with them he shall push the people together from the ends of the earth...


Interesting to note that the punctuation mark (colon) was retained after the word but unicorn in the Bible is capitalized in the church manuscript.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Dr Thomas Wayment

Post by Shulem »

Hot off the press!

Gospel Tangents May 29, 2023
Did Joseph Smith Rip off Adam Clarke?

Dr Thomas Wayment wrote: video clip

Being able to read the Greek behind the New Testament, it’s really hard to understand how you get to the JST, like what is it doing? It to me, it’s me only, I don’t feel like he’s engaging the Greek, I think he’s engaging the English, and I think he’s part of his day, I think he’s being influenced by things he’s read, heard, thought about, prayed about, and it’s influenced his view of the Bible.

Yes, let’s call it the JOSEPH SMITH COMMENTARY OF THE Bible.

That works.

In the meantime, the Mormons are “stuck” with the KJV of the Bible -- and Mormons today are like Shakespearian performers, old fashioned and less relevant.

So, was Job a historical person? It seems the Mormons are stuck with Job just as they are with Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Salah, Arphaxad, Shem, and Noah.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Unicorns & Dragons!!

Post by Shulem »

Before moving forward, I would like to take a moment to highlight my favorite KJV interpretation that carried over into Smith’s Book of Mormon, compliments of the brass plates and inspiration of the Spi®it which I find to be a little spooky at times -- seer stones, rocks, hats, spectacles, treasures, swords, etc.

Wild Beasts of the Islands and Dragons (KJV Isaiah 13:22)

Smith copied errors from the KJV and pasted them into his Book of Mormon manuscript -- CUT & PASTE! Although he claimed to translate ancient history from plates that were said to contain the very writings of Isaiah, whole chapters of KJV Isaiah were copied into the Mormon manuscript when the only thing that should have been translated is genuine original content from Mormon’s gold plates via Laban’s brass plates. Nephite historians could have only given a genuine version (140 years old at the time of Lehi) of Isaiah but Joseph Smith ignorantly gave us the English version of 1611 AD. There are no excuses for that! None! I don’t care what apologists say; it’s just wrong, wrong, wrong. I so testify:

Compare the Book of Mormon to modern various versions that reflect accuracy from the Bible and it becomes glaringly obvious that Smith was in fact guilty of cutting and pasting Isaiah from the KJV into his own manuscript.

KJV wrote:And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in [their] pleasant palaces: and her time [is] near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
Book of Mormon wrote:And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged.

Modern biblical versions show a marked difference between the KJV/Book of Mormon and what Isaiah originally wrote. Note that there are no beasts living on coastal islands and no dragons either. Those things are Book of Mormon fiction taken from KJV errors.

  • NLT wrote:Hyenas will howl in its fortresses, and jackals will make their dens in its palaces. Babylon's days are numbered; its time of destruction will soon arrive.
  • NIV wrote:Hyenas will howl in her strongholds, jackals in her luxurious palaces. Her time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged.
  • ESV wrote:Hyenas will cry in its towers, and jackals in the pleasant palaces; its time is close at hand and its days will not be prolonged.

Adam Clarke did not provide an easy answer in which Smith might have taken to correct a KJV gaffe that everyone originally assumed was on the gold plates and neither did he correct desolate to pleasant. Joseph Smith goofed up by copying from the KJV!

Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:Verse 22

Verse Isaiah 13:22. In their pleasant palaces - "In their palaces"] באלמנותיו bealmenothaiv; a plain mistake, I presume, for בארמנתיו bearmenothaiv. It is so corrected in two MSS., the Syriac, Chaldee, and Vulgate.

Πουλυποδες δ' εν εμοι θαλαμας φωκαι τε μελαιναι

Οικα ποιησονται ακηδεα, χητεΐ λαων.
BeNotDeceived
Priest
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 7:52 pm

Re: A Recovered Resource The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation

Post by BeNotDeceived »

The arguments here for Joe's 'inspired translations' are like trying to re-arrange the chairs on the titanic as it's sinking. Smith was arguably one of the greatest con men this nation has ever seen, right up there L. Ron Hubbard and his scietology nonsense. :oops: :lol:
Post Reply