Radio Free Mormon: 187: ?????Borrowed Robes??????????The JST?????s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

[_Shulem]

Example #3

Stealing Clarke's Hebrew Unicorn

Isaiah said that unicorns will come down with cattle to meet their fate:

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:

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:

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?

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.

Folks, Smith stole the unicorn and other men's wives. Why? Because he was horny (pun intended)!

[_Shulem]

Example #4

Plural or single?

And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

Adam Clarke was not happy with the construction of this sentence and pointing out that it tends to make Jesus a malefactor -- hence, the verse is poorly written.

Two other malefactors - Ἑτεροι δυο κακουργοι, should certainly be translated two others, malefactors, as in the Bibles published by the King's printer, Edinburgh. As it now stands in the text, it seems to intimate that our blessed Lord was also a malefactor.

So, if you guessed that Smith took Clarke's recommendation -- you're right, you get a prize!

And there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

[_Shulem]

Part II is up!

Radio Free Mormon: 190: The Adam Clarke Connection

Joseph Smith depended on the Adam Clarke Commentary to fashion his own so-called Inspired Version of biblical passages in making biblical corrections. The well guarded secret that Smith stole from Clarke has now been revealed in our day, finally, after 190 years the cat is out of the bag.

QUESTION:

Did Joseph Smith rely on Adam Clarke's Commentary to translate the Book of Mormon?

:surprised:

[_Shulem]

Wow, Radio Free Mormon dropped a bomb at the end of podcast (Part II) and I'm simply blown away. I learned something entirely new and am totally impressed with the implications of this amazing find via Dan Vogel! Church apologists have been known to brag about how inspired Smith was in associating the crocodile depicted in the lower section of Facsimile No. 1 with that of Pharaoh's god. Bear in mind that Smith was well aware that the Bible associated the Egyptians with the worshiping of many gods, an idolatrous religion to the extreme. That's basic common knowledge of the Egyptian religion for anyone who knows the Bible -- Adam Clarke was particularly aware of this.

But what of the crocodile? Was this an amazing hit? A bullseye as apologists have led us to believe?

A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM NO. 1
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.

First, let's keep in mind that Smith could have labeled any of the figures below the lion couch as a "god" and would have been correct in a most general sense. No matter where he threw the "god" dart he would have have gotten a hit. It would be like a blindfolded kid pinning the tail on the donkey when the rear end of the donkey was virtually the entire target. You can't lose! Easy peasy! Just throw the dart and say "it's a god"! You can't lose, you automatically win the prize! Nothing miraculous about it at all.

Radio Free Mormon cites Adam Clarke Commentary Ex. 1:1 for the reference, but that is incorrect, the reference of the crocodile associated with Pharaoh is Ex. 1:11. (You might want to edit that in your podcast, RFM).

It may be necessary to observe that all the Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was, took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne; a name which, in its general acceptation, signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning, as Bochart has amply proved, it signifies a crocodile, which being a sacred animal among the Egyptians, the word might be added to their kings in order to procure them the greater reverence and respect.

I think it's a safe bet that Smith referred to Adam Clarke when interpreting the crocodile in Facsimile No. 1 and took his recommendation, yet again.

What else is in the Adam Clarke Commentary which Smith stole for the Book of Abraham?

:question:

[_Philo Sofee]

If memory serves me correctly, after I had written one of those really COOL apologetics papers where I cited well over 20 ancient sources showing this crocodile connection, asking how could Joseph Smith have known?, Brent Metcalfe gave me this reference and said mystery solved. It like totally stymied me. You mean there is a modern source to such a groovy evidence of antiquity?! Yep. I was pretty mad at Brent for a while after that.....All that hard work, and cool references to obscure sources making me look like I was really the cat's meow for apologetics and Joseph Smith, only to be shot down because I had narrowed the context to ONLY an ancient one, ignoring the modern stuff easily available to Joseph Smith. Metcalfe thwarted me good and proper!

[_Shulem]

I had written one of those really COOL apologetics papers where I cited well over 20 ancient sources showing this crocodile connection

Yeah, ha ha.

How about this one:

Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as "Idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

Egyptologically, Joseph Smith’s description of the crocodile in facsimile #1 is absolutely precise.

Thanks, to Adame Clarke, so it seems.

[_Shulem]

Example #5

Qualify the phrase of scripture given

The following example seems rather nit-picky and of little consequence but it's another example (although tiny) that ties Smith to Clarke's commentary. Surely, Smith would have caught the opening line to what Clarke had to say about verse 16 and would not have dismissed it but adopt it because it makes perfect sense.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What surely caught Smith's eye is in blue:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original πασα γραφη θεοκνευστος ωφιλιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it.

Notice, Smith got rid of the "IS" and took Clarke's advice:

And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

[_Shulem]

Example #6

Get rid of the "testament" and the "testator"!

The Bible bears testimony of the testament. That should seem well enough for most Christians to accept. But wait! You guessed it, Smith is going to once again take Clarke's advice and get rid of the testament written 6 times in Hebrews 9:15-20 and replace them in the JST with the word "covenant". Not only that, Smith replaced the words "testator" found in verses 16 & 17 of the KJV and replaced them with "victim".

He is the Mediator of the new testament - There was no proper reason why our translators should render διαθηκη by testament here, when in almost every other case they render it covenant, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew ברית berith, which see largely explained, Genesis 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

<snip>

"For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive."

He observes, "There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes.

Smith, evidently failed to take Clarke's advice (continued in the Matthew commentary) when translating the famous JST version of Matthew 26:

For this is in remembrance of my blood of the new testament, which is shed for as many as shall believe on my name, for the remission of their sins.

What ever happened to the "new covenant"? That pesky new testament snuck its way into Smith's Bible! Smith was obviously overwhelmed and wasn't up to the task of keeping his work consistent.

[_consiglieri]

I am also just now receiving information that the idea Egyptians practiced human sacrifice, though erroneous by contemporary standards, was also mentioned in Adam clarke's Bible commentary.

[_Shulem]

Example #7

"Come, my love,let’s go to the field behind the barn!"

Knowing how much Joseph Smith loved women (especially 14 year old girls and other men's wives) it's inconceivable that Smith omitted the Song of Solomon from the Inspired Version. I'm afraid, or so it appears, Smith was persuaded by Adam Clarke that Solomon's songs were not inspired and therefore need not be included in the canon.

But none of these things appear in this book: the name of God is not found in it; nor is it quoted in the New Testament.

<snip>

To conclude: I advise all young ministers to avoid preaching on Solomon's Song. If they take a text out of it, to proclaim salvation to lost sinners, they must borrow their doctrines from other portions of Scripture, where all is plain and pointed.

Clarke's commentary defines the title of the Old Testament book and also makes reference to song's in the plural and gives examples.

Introduction to the Canticles, or Song of Solomon

The book before us is called in the Hebrew השירים שיר Shir Hashshirim, "The Song of Songs;" or, "An Ode of the Odes:"

1. celebrated by his prophets for this cause, in holy songs; and those songs preserved with care to this day

2. Songs of Jayadeva

3. translation of the Song of Songs

The original manuscript available for view at the Joseph Smith Papers states that "The Songs of Solomon are not Inspired writings."


I have to think that Smith and his scribes perused Clarke's commentary and after viewing the word "Songs" multiple times in various context they had forgotten the actual name of the Book in the KJV of the Old Testament and the scribe mistakenly wrote "The Songs of Solomon" in the Inspired manuscript. Not that this is a big deal because it's not. But we are left to conclude that Smith consulted Clarke (borrowed his robes) in order to find out the real meaning of the Bible!