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

[Shulem]

It's up!

This one should be a bomb!

click here:

Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Downloaded.

Do we know if Joseph Smith ever made any claims regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible? Did he ever make claims of revelation or inspiration or visitations regarding his JST? It would be interesting, particularly in light of his plagiarisms from Clark's Bible Commentary to know what he himself had actually claimed regarding the book. His statements on the book would be damning evidence of his efforts to commit fraud in getting his adherents to believe his prophetic claims.

Question asked Question answered:

On the title page of the JST is this intoduction:

While translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery found they held different views on the meaning of a passage in the Bible. They “mutually agreed to settle” the question “by the Urim and [Thummim].” As a result, Joseph received a revelation giving the translation of an account by the ancient disciple John, written on parchment but lost to history. This early experience seeking revelation that expanded the text of a Bible passage was an important precedent. About a year later, during the summer of 1830, Joseph and Oliver received by revelation an account of a vision of Moses not found in the Old Testament. This revelation marked the beginning of Joseph Smith’s efforts to prepare an inspired revision or translation of the Bible. For the next three years, Joseph continued work on his “new translation of the Bible,” considering the project a “branch of [his] calling” as a prophet of God.1

[Shulem]

Example #1

Moving the parenthetical comment to the end of the verse

KJV Parenthetical Comment in BLUE

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

(Touch not; taste not; handle not;

Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Adam Clarke explains that the practice of forbidden things causes one to perish so the parenthetical part belongs at the end rather than in the middle like it is in the muddled KJV:

Touch not; taste not; handle not - These are forms of expression very frequent among the Jews. In Maccoth, fol. xxi. 1: "If they say to a Nazarite, Don't drink, don't drink; and he, notwithstanding, drinks; he is guilty. If they say, Don't shave, don't shave; and he shaves, notwithstanding; he is guilty. If they say, Don't put on these clothes, don't put on these clothes; and he, notwithstanding, puts on heterogeneous garments; he is guilty."

Here we see that Joseph Smith follows suit with Clarke's explanation that the parenthetical clause is out of place and belongs at the end; wherefore the JST puts it at the end where it belongs and the verse makes more sense.

Col 2:20 Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Col 2:21 Which are after the doctrines and commandments of men, who teach you to touch not, taste not, handle not--all those things which are to perish with the using,

[Shulem]

Some may say that the reference of the parenthetical commentary is somewhat weak in showing proof that Smith used Adam Clark's commentary. BUT, I shall now provide absolute evidence that Joseph Smith did in fact use the commentary to work out his early translation of the Old Testament -- called the Inspired Version. This is one of several bulls-eyes in showing that Smith stole from Clarke just like he stole from others. Add all the bulls-eyes together and the chances of Smith not borrowing from Clark becomes astronomical. No way! You can't deny that the sun is shining when you are outside looking at it.

Admit it, Smith used Clarke. See for yourself:

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah - See the note on 2 Kings 8:26. Ahaziah might have been twenty-two years old, according to 2 Kings 8:26; (note), but he could not have been forty-two, as stated here, without being two years older than his own father! See the note there. The Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and the Septuagint, in some copies, twenty. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was easy to mistake מ mem, Forty, for כ caph, Twenty. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between caph and mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.

The reading in 2 Kings 8:26; is right, and any attempt to reconcile this in Chronicles with that is equally futile and absurd. Both readings cannot be true; is that therefore likely to be genuine that makes the son two years older than the father who begat him? Apage hae nugae!

Sure enough, Smith stole from Clarke as if it was his own inspiration:

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

[Shulem]

Sure enough, Smith stole from Clarke as if it was his own inspiration:

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

The apologists may fall back and say that we really can't prove it but that Smith was truly inspired to change the age from 42 to 22 because the Spirit revealed it. I would simply counter that by pointing out that Smith also incorporated numerous KJV errors into his Book of Mormon and would the same Spirit instruct him to do that? But the apologist might snap back and insist that the age 22 revelation was a sign by God proving that Smith was truly translating the Bible in a corrective spirit.

Sigh.

But the apologist will also have to take into consideration the king Jehoiachin discrepancy wherein the Old Testament Kings account says he was 18 when he began to reign but the KJV Chronicles typo records age 8. What's interesting, however, is that Smith did not catch this particular error, whether by the Spirit of revelation or Adam Clark's commentary in which it is pointedly explained that that Chronicles is in error. Therefore, Smith failed to correct the king's lists which is something he should not have missed when you consider all the other finer points he corrected in comparing the Kings and Chronicles accounts.

See here how Smith failed to catch the error:

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

What did Adam Clark have to say?

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old - He is called Jeconiah, 1 Chronicles 3:16, and Coniah, Jeremiah 22:24. In 2 Chronicles 36:9, be is said to be only eight years of age, but this must be a mistake; for we find that, having reigned only three months, he was carried captive to Babylon, and there he had wives; and it is very improbable that a child between eight and nine years of age could have wives; and of such a tender age, it can scarcely be said that, as a king, he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. The place in Chronicles must be corrupted.

That he was a grievous offender against God, we learn from Jeremiah 22:24, which the reader may consult; and in the man's punishment, see his crimes.

Did Joseph Smith steal from Adam Clarke and correct the account in the so-called Inspired Version of Chronicles?

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Nope, Smith must have skipped over that part of Clarke's commentary. And he wasn't inspired to fix it. The Holy Ghost must have been out to lunch on that day. It just goes to show that Smith's work really wasn't all that inspired when you think about it.

[Shulem]

Excellent research, Shulem

Hey consig - have you ever talked on your podcast about your past time defending the Book of Mormon? I apologize for not being a regular listener but I think I'd be interested in that. It would be very interesting to have you, Shulem, and Philo spend some time talking about the experience and motivations behind looking for bulls eyes for what ended up being a Texas Sharp Shooter exercise.

[Shulem]

Example #2

Omitting the parenthetical comment of an ENTIRE verse!

KJV Parenthetical Comment in BLUE

(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Admittedly, this is a pretty short verse but some verses are even shorter such as: "Jesus wept", so it must be there for a reason, right? Or maybe not! What did Adam Clarke have to say?

And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds - This whole verse is omitted by the Codex Bezae, a few others, and some copies of the Itala. It is probably an observation that some person made while our Lord was delivering the parable, with a design to correct him in the distribution: as if he had said, "Why give the mina to that person? he has got ten already; give it to one of those who has fewer."

So, what did Joseph Smith do with verse 25 in his version of the Inspired Bible? If you guessed that he copied the KJV, you'd be wrong. He did exactly what Adame Clarke suggested -- and it was omitted forthright.

It appears (or I should say disappears) that Smith stole from Clarke's work without giving him any credit. Smith has been known to steal ideas from others and incorporate them for his own uses.

[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?

[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?