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

[Shulem]

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!

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.

[Shulem]

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.

Ask and ye shall receive.



Let's take a peek and see what we find, the third sampling is of particular interest:

I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh -

Diodorus Siculus, lib. i., gives the same account of the ancient constitution of Egypt. "The land," says he, "was divided into three parts:

One belonged to the Priests, with which they provided all sacrifices, and maintained all the ministers of religion.

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).

Plutarch assures us, De Iside et Osiride, that in several cities of Egypt they were accustomed to sacrifice human beings to Typhon, which they burned alive upon a high altar; and at the close of the sacrifice the priests gathered the ashes of these victims, and scattered them in the air:

I tend to think that Joseph Smith assumed that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice along with their idolatry. He also made the assumption that a black person is a slave just because they're black. He made Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 into a slave by chopping off his powerful snout and assuming the appearance of an African man figure would turn him into a slave when he knew damn well he was more than that. Smith really pulled a fast one in doing that. But, I busted him on that and more shall be revealed in time.

[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!

[Shulem]

Example #8

I have a complaint!

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

But what did Adam Clarke have to say?

made his complaint against Israel

So who did Joseph Smith copy?

he maketh complaint to God against Israel

[Shulem]

Example #9

God doesn't love you but Christ does!

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren

The Bible copies the Book of Mormon by declaring that God himself loves us and will come down and die: "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men" (Mosiah 15:1)

1. God loves us and comes down to die for us.
2. We too should die for each other just like God did.

But wait! What did Adam Clarke say about "God" dying for us?

Here the apostle says, We perceive, εγνωκαμεν, we have known, the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. Of God is not in the text, but it is preserved in one MS., and in two or three of the versions; but though this does not establish its authenticity, yet του Θεου, of God, is necessarily understood, or του Χριστου, of Christ, as Erpen's Arabic has it; or αυτου εις ἡμας, his love to us, as is found in the Syriac.

So, what did Smith do after reading Clarke's version of the Bible? Did he take Clarke's recommendation or go with the Book of Mormon?

Hereby perceive we the love of Christ because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Sorry God, but Christ supersedes you. You're OUT!

[Shulem]

Example #10

From past tense to future tense.

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Note -- they "perished" as in the past tense.

But what if anything did Clarke's header say about this verse in his general description of the contents of Jude (1-25)?

The false teachers particularly described: they are like brute beasts, going the way of Cain, run after the error of Balaam, and shall perish, as did Korah in his gainsaying

QUESTION: Did Smith stick with the Bible or did he adopt Clarke's personal (non-canonical) introduction in explaining the chapter of Jude?

If you guessed that Smith took Clarke's private interpretation, you're correct!

Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and shall perish in the gainsaying of Core.

Let's see what other versions of the Bible have to offer for verse 11 and we discover that unlike Smith (plagiarizer) they all go with the past tense:

21st Century KJV: perished in the gainsaying of Korah
American Standard Version: perished in the gainsaying of Korah
Amplified Bible: perished in the rebellion of [mutinous] Korah.
BRG Bible: perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Christian Standard Bible: perished in Korah’s rebellion
Common English Bible: destroyed in the uprising of Korah
Complete Jewish Bible destroyed in the rebellion of Korach
Contemporary English Version: they will be destroyed
Darby Translation: perished in the gainsaying of Core
Disciples' Literal Translation: perished in the rebellion of Korah
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: perished in the contradiction of Core

Etc

CONCLUSION: Smith copied from Clark's personal commentary! He's been caught red-handed stealing from Clarke! This is proof positive.

Thief!

[Shulem]

THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPERS INTRODUCTION TO REVELATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS: VOLUME 4

When revising the Bible, Smith worked with a copy of the King James Version, apparently with no other instrument at hand. Some revisions, like minor grammatical changes, may well have been considered to be the result of human reason rather than divine revelation. A subset of the changes appears to be the result of an attempt to harmonize differences among the gospels or other scriptures, and evidence also suggests that Smith and his scribes consulted Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary as they considered the text.

That ties it. Joseph Smith did in fact steal from Clarke because the evidence is absolutely conclusive in this regard. It's about time the Church admits it. Isn't that right, RFM? You need to know your JST!

The problem with Smith stealing from Clarke is that he never gave him any credit or reference in that regard. Smith assumed that since he was the prophet he could do whatever he wanted and didn't have to answer to anyone. He could steal a Bible translation or a spiritual clause and assume as if he was the author. If he wanted your wife, you politely hand her over. If he wants your cherry-like 14 year old daughter then you hand her over too and warn your 12 year old that she may be next.

That's Mormonism. Bow before the prophet and do anything and everything he says or be damned!

[Shulem]

Some revisions, like minor grammatical changes, may well have been considered to be the result of human reason rather than divine revelation.

What? Human reason? Human reason is sufficient enough to CHANGE the Bible!



The Inspired version of the Bible is SUPPOSE to be an "inspired" work in it's entirety. But now we learn that Smith may have been turning his revelation ON and OFF throughout his translation process -- just like a light switch.

I think the Church is saying this just to get them off the hook as things appear to show just how UNINSPIRED Smith was. He was inspired and sometimes he wasn't which reminds me of Peter Paul candy bars when sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.

So, now it boils down to the inspired mind coupled with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit vs. human reasoning.

Way to go, Mormon Church.