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

[Shulem]

Example #11

From (the) definite article to pronoun

. . . . Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Well, okay. But whose left? Is it Jesus's left or the son's left?

What does Clarke say?

One on thy right hand, and the other on (Thy) left - I have added the pronoun in the latter clause on the authority of almost every MS. and version of repute.

Sure enough, Smith took Clarke's advice and changed it to a pronoun. It didn't take a revelation. It's just copying what the other person is saying and then calling it the "Joseph Smith Translation":

. . . . Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.

[Shulem]

Example #12

Is Matthew's testimony stronger than Mark's?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Shame on Mark for not including Peter's two-bit "Son of the living God". That was extremely rude of Mark to omit that from the record. For Shame!

Nevertheless, Adam Clarke to the rescue!

Thou art the Christ - Three MSS. and some versions add, the Son of the living God.

So what did Joseph do? He did exactly what Clarke told him to do:

And Peter answered and said unto him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Folks, this is not rocket science. Neither is it revelation! It's Joseph Smith copying and stealing information from someone else by failing to give them credit.

Revelation, my ass!

[Shulem]

We know Joseph passed on translating the Apocrypha, even receiving a revelation it was not needful. We also know Adam Clarke's Commentary doesn't cover the Apocrypha. What are the odds these two facts are not a coincidence?

SECTION 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord (JOSEPH SMITH) unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, (BUT I CANNOT SAY WHAT THEY ARE BECAUSE ADAM CLARKE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT) which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated (Bible! A Bible! WE HAVE GOT A Bible, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY MORE Bible).

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it (HAVE AT IT BUT I'M NOT HELPING YOU), let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; (BUT COUNT ME OUT)

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated (BECAUSE ADAM CLARKE DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT AND BRO OLIVER DOESN'T KNOW THE WORKS). Amen.

[Shulem]

Example #13

Harmonizing the gospels through Clarke

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS J E S U S THE KING OF THE JEWS.

What did Adam Clarke have to say in order to help harmonize the gospel accounts of the crucifixion seeing that the different accounts vary in their description?

Both Luke, Luke 23:38, and John, John 19:20, say that this accusation was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In those three languages, we may conceive the label to stand thus, according to the account given by St. John; the Hebrew being the mixed dialect then spoken.

Naturally, Smith assumes that Adam Clarke knows what he's talking about because Clark is the real expert, so, Smith takes his advice, yet again. No need to peep into a hat and see the words. Just consult Clarke and write down what he says.

JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS, in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.

[Shulem]

Example #14

Caught in your own web

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin

Wow. Being "damned" just for eating something outside the bounds of faith. That's DAMN harsh! But what did Adam Clarke have to say about it?

And he that doubteth - This verse is a necessary part of the preceding, and should be read thus: But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. The meaning is sufficiently plain. He that feeds on any kind of meats prohibited by the Mosaic law, with the persuasion in his mind that he may be wrong in so doing, is condemned by his conscience for doing that which he has reason to think God has forbidden.

Naturally, Smith is going to follow what Clarke says:

And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because it is not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

But wait! Hold on there. What about St Paul's warning about those who unworthily partake of the sacrament? Aren't they "damned"?

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

But what did Adam Clarke have to say about that?

Eateth and drinketh damnation - Κριμα, Judgment, punishment; and yet this is not unto damnation, for the judgment or punishment inflicted upon the disorderly and the profane was intended for their emendation; for in 1 Corinthians 11:32, it is said, then we are judged, κρινομενοι, we are chastened, παιδευομεθα, corrected as a father does his children, that we should not be condemned with the world.

And you guessed right, Smith fixed that too:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

STOP!

Enough of this foolishness. Joseph Smith was nothing but a trickster -- tripped by his own net and caught in his own web. Smith followed Adam Clarke when he was using him! But Smith in his so-called revelations (without the aid of Clarke) was not consistent and has been caught in the very act of plagiarizing!

For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul;

[Shulem]

Now seems a good time to criticize one of Smith's corrections that is not mentioned in RFM's 17 point list and at the same time take a swipe at Clarke.

Are you listening, RFM? Are you there?

Turn to me, if you would, by opening your Bible to:

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The use of the word "defraud" is rather peculiar in this context seeing we are talking about sexual relations. Defraud means to illegally obtain money from someone by means of deception. Sex between married people isn't so much a form of payment as it is an expression of love and goodwill between two people (or three if you're into threesomes :biggrin: )

Adam Clarke seems to follow suit in his commentary:

Defraud ye not one the other - What ye owe thus to each other never refuse paying, unless by mutual consent; and let that be only for a certain time, when prudence dictates the temporary separation, or when some extraordinary spiritual occasion may render it mutually agreeable, in order that ye may fast and pray, and derive the greatest possible benefit from these duties by being enabled to wait on the Lord without distraction.

Who said anything about owing money for sex, or "paying"? Well, I'll at least credit Joseph Smith for venturing away from Clarke and coming up with his own word, although it doesn't really explain that St Paul is talking about sex. Smith seems to think it's about not departing from one another as if they are traveling or taking a vacation.

Depart ye not one from the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

I think today's bibles do a better job than Clarke or a hack like Smith!

Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So don't refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Do not deprive one another sexually--except when you agree for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

[Shulem]

Example #15

"bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared"

Smith copies Clarke, word for word, including the comma:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men - Επεφανη γαρ ἡ χαρις του Θεου ἡ σωτηριος πασιν ανθρωποις· Literally translated, the words stand thus: For the grace of God, that which saves, hath shone forth upon all men. Or, as it is expressed in the margin of our authorized version: The grace of God, that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared.

For the grace of God, which bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared,

[Shulem]

Example #16

A PERIOD at the end of "chosen" in the KJV

For many are called, but few are chosen.

What comment might Adam Clarke like to add which we know Smith will steal?

Many are called, etc. - This verse is wanting in one of Colbert's MSS., marked 33 in Griesbach. See the note on Matthew 20:16. Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for a marriage garment - for that holiness without which none can see the Lord.

For many are called, but few chosen; wherefore, all do not have on the wedding garment.

[Shulem]

Example #17

All what?

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

Never fear, Adam Clarke explains it and you can bet Smith takes his Que from Clarke.

He knew all men - Instead of παντας all men, EGH, and about thirty others, read παντα, every man, or all things; and this I am inclined to believe is the true reading. Jesus knew all things; and why? Because he made all things, John 1:3, and because he was the all-wise God, John 1:1; and he knew all men, because he alone searches the heart, and tries the reins.

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them because he knew all things,

[Shulem]

Bravo, Shulem!

A masterful performance!

And yes, I am listening!

Oh thank you for that!

I hope others are tuning in too. It might just be me and you. Nobody else seems to care.

But you know me, I'm happy enough just talking to myself. Often I quote myself and then talk back.



Have you listened to this talk by Bruce R McConkie regarding the Joseph Smith Translation? It's over an hour long. There is no transcript.

I very much doubt he mentions or gives any credit to Adam Clarke but gives all the credit to Joseph Smith under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph Smith Translation: The Doctrinal Restoration
BRUCE R. MCCONKIE of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
November 3, 1984

Six minutes into his talk I learned that he labels the Bible as "imperfect" and the Book of Mormon as "near-perfect". That's just a fancy way of saying that the Book of Mormon is NOT perfect because "near-perfect" is not perfection. The Book of Mormon is full of imperfections including the warts of the KJV.

Pompous windbag, McConkie. What an apostolic-ass!

Windbag McConkie correctly states that "there is no such thing as an original manuscript it simply does not exist". He points out that what has come down to us is "copies of copies of copies" and all contain errors and textual variations. He poses the question about what version should we accept as he begins to make his introduction of the JST given for the "perfecting and enlargement of the Bible" whereby Smith would "begin the perfection of the Bible".

Through Joseph Smith it was now possible to restore the Bible through "re-revelation" to an "original state of purity and plainness!" The "restoration of the Bible"!

Advance to 38:00 and listen to the windbag go on and on about the JST including the Books of Mormon and Abraham. Any mention of Adam Clarke and the fact that Smith plagiarized his work and pawned it off as his own revelation?

McConkie stresses that further doctrinal restoration of the scriptures is for a millennial day.

In the meantime,

Yes the inspired version of the Bible is inspired. Yes, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible is holy scripture

Then so be it, you want your cake and eat it too, you pompous foolish apostle or Mormondom! What Adam Clarke wrote verbatim as written in his commentary and copied by Smith was the original holy scripture from God which Smith plagiarized.

Thanks for clarifying, Bruce; Adam Clarke was a prophet and his holy commentary is the word of God. Smith was a copycat!