Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Content transferred from the former board.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible wrote:Joseph Smith also made many smaller changes that improved grammar, modernized language, corrected points of doctrine, or alleviated inconsistencies. As he worked on these changes, he appears in many instances to have consulted respected commentaries by biblical scholars, studying them out in his mind as a part of the revelatory process.
And yes, that would include the Adam Clarke Commentary in which Smith used to feign claim his plagiarized revelations.

The following Church article (dated 2016) says nothing about the Clarke Commentary but acts like Smith's translation process was wholly cut from the cloth of the Holy Ghost:

Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation
Elizabeth Maki wrote:Joseph’s translation was not carried out in the traditional sense. He didn’t consult Greek and Hebrew texts or use lexicons to create a new English version. Rather, he used the King James Version of the Bible as his starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost.
So there you have it. Rather than Adam Clarke directing Smith it was really the Holy Ghost.

Go figure.

:roll:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

And this audio by Brian Hauglid on the Church website:

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible


It's 30 minutes

Hauglid says Smith didn't use lexicons or dictionaries. He said it was "all based on his revelatory seership".

consiglieri » Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:44 pm wrote:Oops. I expect Brian feels differently now.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
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?
Adam Clark Commentary
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:
Ezek 29 Verse 3

The great dragon - התנים hattannim should here be translated crocodile, as that is a real animal, and numerous in the Nile; whereas the dragon is wholly fabulous. The original signifies any large animal.

The midst of his rivers - This refers to the several branches of the Nile, by which this river empties itself into the Mediterranean. The ancients termed them septem ostia Nili, "the seven mouths of the Nile." The crocodile was the emblem of Egypt.

Ezek 29 Verse 4

I will cause the fish - to stick unto thy scales - Most fish are sorely troubled with a species of insect which bury their heads in their flesh, under their scales, and suck out the vital juices. The allusion seems to be to this. Pharaoh was the crocodile; the fish, the common people; and the sticking to his scales, the insurrection by which he was wasted and despoiled of his kingdom.

Lucky Smith got a couple things right in the Facsimiles that are worth pointing out:

1. The stars in the motif (the actual papyrus would be much clearer and crisp looking stars then what rolled off the press for Facsimile No. 3). "Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court."

2. The crocodile being a symbol of Pharaoh's god as clearly defined in the Adam Clarke commentary which Smith used to make his new translation of the bible. "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh."

Now, with that said, what did Smith get wrong? Just about everything!
Last edited by Shulem on Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

News from Antiquity By Daniel C. Peterson
Evidence supporting the book of Abraham continues to turn up in a wide variety of sources.


Here we have DCP in 1994 acting as if he's an Egyptologist and carefully crafting his sentences in a manner that leads his readers down a rabbit whole of deception. Peterson remains wishy-washy about WHEN Abraham was in Egypt or WHICH king's throne he happened to sit on which is absolutely rediculous according to Ritner. There is no way in hell Abraham sat on the throne of a 12th Dynasty king and that is when the bible dates him to have lived! So let's see where he goes in trying to make the Explanations of Facsimile No. 1 appear authentic and as if it accurately reflects the antiquity from which they represent.

Peterson leads his readers to believe that Smith identifying the crocodile with pharaoh's god is evidence of his ability to understand what is going on in the vignette of Facsimile No. 1, as if this single correct identification lends credence to the rest of Smith's controversial Explanations:
DCP wrote:One noteworthy element of the religious situation portrayed in the book of Abraham is the identification of a crocodile as “the idolatrous god of Pharaoh.” (Facsimile 1, fig. 9.) Although this may have seemed strange in Joseph Smith’s day, discoveries in other ancient texts confirm this representation. Unas or Wenis, for example, was the last king of the fifth dynasty (circa 2356–2323 B.C.), and his pyramid still stands at Saqqara, south of modern Cairo. Utterance 317 of Unas’s Pyramid Texts includes the following: “The King Appears as the Crocodile-God Sobk,” and “Unas has come today from the overflowing flood; Unas is Sobk, green-plumed, wakeful, alert. … Unas arises as Sobk, son of Neith.” One scholar observes that “the god Sobk is … viewed as a manifestation of Horus, the god most closely identified with the kingship of Egypt” during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom era (circa 2040–1640 B.C.), which includes the time period that tradition indicates as Abraham’s lifetime.

Intriguingly, Middle Kingdom Egypt saw a great deal of activity in the large oasis to the southwest of modern Cairo known as the Faiyum. Crocodiles were common there, and Sobk (or Sobek) was the chief local deity. The last king of the twelfth dynasty, which may include the period of Abraham’s life, even adopted the name of the crocodile god, calling himself Nefru-sobk (“Beautiful is Sobk”), and five pharaohs of the next dynasty, the thirteenth, took the name Sebek-hotpe (“Sobk is content”).
So, NOW that we know Smith got his cues from the Adam Clarke Commentary, how does this reduce the impact of DCP's example of Smith correctly identifying the crocodile as evidence to show Smith was inspired? It completely eliminates the evidence that Smith was supposedly inspired and simply goes to show that Smith was well read.

So what do you think of those apples, Peterson?

:wink:

This question is not just thrown in Peterson's direction but to all the LDS apologists who have tendered Smith's explanation of the crocodile in their various apologetic arguments as evidence that Smith got something right. Sure, Smith got something right all right, no argument there -- but we now know that he got it right with a little help from his friends to include the Adam Clarke Commentary. The only other thing Smith got somewhat right in Facsimile No. 1 (although the names are all wrong) is that the four figures below the bed were symbols of Egyptian gods. Everyone knows that Egypt had a rather large pantheon and believed in many gods so it's no big stretch to credit Smith in getting that much right. And he kept within bounds of the ancient theme of 4 winds or 4 directions -- he gets half a point for that too. Way to go Smith! You can count to 4! You must be a prophet!

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Was peeping over at the MAD board and saw one of their more deranged apologists just now used the crocodile defense to prop up Smith's claims in being a translator of Facsimile No. 1.
Egyptologist James H. Breasted wrote:Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.
Apologist response:
smac97 wrote: Image

"Totally unacquainted" doesn't seem to account for Joseph Smith's seemingly correct (or at least plausible) interpretations and narrative elements, such as

A) the crocodile in Facs. 1 ("The idolatrous god of Pharaoh")

And so there you have it. Joseph Smith was well versed with Adam Clark's Commentary and that's suppose to make him a translator of ancient Egyptian?

Mormons will stoop to any level to save the Book of Abraham.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Radio Free Mormon: “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

consiglieri,

Earlier, I quoted this bit in Clark's Commentary in which Joseph Smith surely must have been familiar with while making his New Translation of the bible -- which I remind you is years prior to the Book of Abraham:
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 7:22 wrote:As it is well known that the Nile was a chief object of Egyptian idolatry, (See Clarke's note on Exodus 7:15;), and that annually they sacrificed a girl, or as others say, both a boy and a girl, to this river, in gratitude for the benefits received from it, (Universal Hist., vol. i., p. 178, fol. edit).
It seems plausible that Clarke's statement above may have influenced Smith in writing his Book of Abraham novel. Seriously, I think this may be a hit on Clark's reference to human sacrifice:
Abraham 1:10 wrote:Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.
Oh, and by the way. Ritner was adamant that the so-called "altar" is NOT an altar but a bed. I have some thoughts on that and which further disprove Smith's silly story about an altar of sacrifice as portrayed in Facsimile No. 1, which is directly referred to in the text of Abraham himself. I would think you might be interested in those thoughts. But this is not the thread for that particular topic.
Post Reply