JST relied on bible commentary by Adam Clarke, new research shows

[Gray]

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

Quote

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap.2 The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance.3 In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.

 

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

 

Eta: forgot the link!  http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Edited January 18, 2018 by Gray

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

 

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

I think folks should be invited to read the whole article; it isn’t that long: http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

It seems that one kind of revelation was operating in Joseph’s “Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source” and “Theological corrections; and another kind in selecting from Clarke’s work “Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text;” “Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels,” and “Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.” In the first kind, we have prophetic disclosure of the Lord’s mind to a prophet, and in the second, prophetic discernment of what to co-opt from the “best books.”

In either case, the product is not canon, and so I think it qualifies as a “best book,” and both the canon (which is open) and the JST (which is unfinished) are profitable.

[Gray]

Just now, CV75 said:

I think folks should be invited to read the whole article; it isn’t that long: http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

It seems that one kind of revelation was operating in Joseph’s “Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source” and “Theological corrections; and another kind in selecting from Clarke’s work “Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text;” “Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels,” and “Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.” In the first kind, we have prophetic disclosure of the Lord’s mind to a prophet, and in the second, prophetic discernment of what to co-opt from the “best books.”

In either case, the product is not canon, and so I think it qualifies as a “best book,” and both the canon (which is open) and the JST (which is unfinished) are profitable.

Thanks, I forgot to include the link!

[FormerLDS]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

 

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

Well, Joseph Smith did claim this was an "inspired" translation after all...

[rongo]

At a minimum, the important JST section known as The Book of Moses certainly didn't come from Adam Clarke's commentary.  

I don't see a problem with insights from Clarke priming the pump in other areas, but there are a multitude of uniquely Mormon parts in the JST (akin to Melchizedek and Salem, etc.) to where it's clear that he wasn't just cribbing things from contemporary scholarship.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

I don't think it'll have an effect on the JST being inspired. Rather it's part of the "study it out in your minds" and "from the best books." In the same way Joseph later took up learning languages to try and better understand the scriptures. Those in turn led to further revelations. BTW - the original is here.

LDS Perspectives did an interview with Waymont a month ago on this issue. It's worth listening to. (There's a link to a transcript at the bottom)

Waymont sees the commentary used more after Joseph is commanded to stop with the Old Testament (part way through Genesis) and go to the New Testament. However even there we find extended expansions such as Joseph Smith Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price and of course catalysts to major revelations now in the D&C.

Edited January 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[ALarson]

 

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

"Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap."

Wow.  That's a pretty damning statement.  I admit this is not my area of expertise, so I'll be interested to read other's input and comments on this.

Thanks for posting about it, Gray!

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm posting this because Stem brought it up and is unable to start threads. Interesting finding!

 

Apparently the commentary was popular with Methodist theologians.

Will this have any effect on how inspired the JST is considered to be in church? Or does this hold up okay given expanded notions about what constitutes revelation?

 

Eta: forgot the link!  http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

Thanks for posting about this.  I had heard about it on a podcast interview with Thomas Wayment a few months back.  Here is a link in case anyone is interested.  

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/

I didn't know they had published anything yet, so I'm looking forward to reading this.  

What I find very interesting about this is that it continues to show additional evidence of a pattern with Joseph.  The pattern being that he was very adept at borrowing and re-purposing information.  I think this was both a conscious effort at times and a subconscious effort on his part.  As someone that doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena, I find this discovery in harmony with my perspective about what Joseph was doing through his religious innovations.  

I know in modern context many people consider this to be plagiarism, but it was quite common in the 19th century.  Its also to be expected as this is how even the most genius humans produce information, everything is incremental and built upon the findings of others or re-purposing ideas in new ways that actually don't differ quite as much as people might think.  

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems that one kind of revelation was operating in Joseph’s “Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source” ... In the first kind, we have prophetic disclosure of the Lord’s mind to a prophet

 

and in the second, prophetic discernment of what to co-opt from the “best books.”  In either case, the product is not canon, and so I think it qualifies as a “best book,” and both the canon (which is open) and the JST (which is unfinished) are profitable.

For your first point, I think its important to note that when the authors say these long insertions "have not obvious textual source" it doesn't mean there isn't a textual source, just that they haven't found the textual source.  So I don't think assuming these long insertions are the "Lord's mind to a prophet" is a smart default assumption.  I think its wiser to just assume that we don't know where Joseph got those ideas from today, but that doesn't mean we won't find some evidence in the future.  The absence of evidence in this case is not evidence for a divine voice.  

On your second point, I'd like to understand why you're saying the JST isn't canon.  We have large excerpts of it in our the LDS standard works today.  By definition, aren't those canon?  

[CA Steve]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Wow.  That's a pretty damning statement.  I admit this is not my area of expertise, so I'll be interested to read other's input and comments on this.

Thanks for posting about it, Gray!

So wouldn't say this is damning. I would say it offers up a naturalist explanation on how JS produced parts of the JST. It does provide one more answer to the question of "How Joseph was able to do so many things?" He was a genius when it came to assembling parts from his environment and crafting them into a whole. 

So what I think this does is provide proof that he actually used a specific book in crafting some of his writings.

Edited January 18, 2018 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

I don't have the time right now to read the podcast transcript. Is there any mention of time frames on when they think Joseph started using Clarke's or if any changes in Book of Mormon biblical text can be linked to Clarke's?

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

At a minimum, the important JST section known as The Book of Moses certainly didn't come from Adam Clarke's commentary.  

I don't see a problem with insights from Clarke priming the pump in other areas, but there are a multitude of uniquely Mormon parts in the JST (akin to Melchizedek and Salem, etc.) to where it's clear that he wasn't just cribbing things from contemporary scholarship.

I'm finding some of these comments quite interesting.   You seem to be saying that because we know the source of the information (borrowing from Clarke) that those elements are less important.  I find this really interesting and odd to me.   Can you expound on this idea, are you saying the borrowed ideas you would value as less important than the ideas that you believe aren't borrowed? 

I would also note that we really have no evidence that the book of Moses doesn't also contain elements borrowed from another source of some kind.  

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So wouldn't say this is damning. I would say it offers up a naturalist explanation on how JS produced parts of the JST. It does provide one more answer to the question of "How Joseph was able to do so many things?" He was a genius when it came to assembling parts from his environment and crafting them into a whole. 

So what I think this does is provide proof that he actually used a specific book in crafting some of his writings.

Ok.  I can see that too.  Thanks.  I feel that's not what most members have been taught though (or at least led to believe regarding how Joseph went about his translation).  I think many believe it was similar to how he translated the BofM.  I can't remember if it was ever stated that he'd used his seer stone in this translation.  Does anyone know?  I remember he did use it for other things and not just for the BofM.

I'll try to read more on this and will hopefully be able to find time to listen to the interview that Clark posted too.

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Waymont sees the commentary used more after Joseph is commanded to stop with the Old Testament (part way through Genesis) and go to the New Testament. However even there we find extended expansions such as Joseph Smith Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price and of course catalysts to major revelations now in the D&C.

Why should we assume that these expanded sections like Matthew 24 or the Book of Moses or even the D&C sections don't also contain borrowed elements throughout these texts as well?  Do you also believe like Rondo mentioned earlier that the borrowed elements are of less importance somehow?  

[clarkgoble]

 

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In either case, the product is not canon, and so I think it qualifies as a “best book,” and both the canon (which is open) and the JST (which is unfinished) are profitable.

I don't think it's correct to say the JST is unfinished, depending upon what you mean by that. Certainly it didn't restore some pristine original text and so is unfinished in that sense. But then I'm not at all convinced the process was ever intended to do that. Rather I think it was to get Joseph, who was then still quite ignorant, to carefully read the Bible and use that as a catalyst for further revelation.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why should we assume that these expanded sections like Matthew 24 or the Book of Moses or even the D&C sections don't also contain borrowed elements throughout these texts as well?  Do you also believe like Rondo mentioned earlier that the borrowed elements are of less importance somehow?  

They may well. That's the part of study it out that's important. God then tells you elements that are right or may repurpose other elements. That's true in the Book of Mormon as well. I don't think that means the quoted or paraphrased elements are somehow problematic. It's like saying Mosiah 3:25 is somehow less inspired because it includes a paraphrase from Hamlet as a way of translating what was on the plates. 

Speaking only for myself I've certainly felt like the spirit would use other books our sources to answer prayers about a topic or passage. If that's true for someone as limited as myself, wouldn't it be more true for Joseph? For instance I argued in the other thread that Joseph was able to restore the endowment by being told elements within Masonry were correct. The danger, and I think the Masonic example highlights this well, is assuming the overall context of what is used is correct. (For instance the Masonic legends of its origin are almost certainly false) Likewise assuming the meaning in its original context is the same as it's place as an answer in the next context. (The elements of Masonry in the endowment frequently have a different meaning there - yet a meaning that corresponds well to texts from the 2cd temple period through the 3rd century)

But to give an example, there are a few places in the D&C that quote Song of Solomon even thought the JST process had Joseph designating it as false. (Perhaps after reading Clarke given the time frame of the Song of Solomon translation)

[HappyJackWagon]

Are we talking about the JST inspired translation that we hardly even use in the church?  

It is very clear Joseph's "translation" isn't a "translation" in the normal, English version understanding of the word. Joseph seems to have pulled information from so many different sources it's hard to be too surprised when another source is discovered. It doesn't appear to me that revelation or inspiration flowed from the heavens but rather that Joseph had to work and study, ponder, and then come to some conclusions or at least ideas that he then labeled revelation and translation. Maybe there was some legit heavenly inspiration in there or maybe there wasn't, but it seems clear that Joseph wasn't the conduit of God's direct word that we often give him credit for. I doubt that Joseph was any more "inspired" than Clark was when he created his commentary.

Besides, if the church wanted to put all of its eggs into the JST then it could do that. We could all be reading the JST instead of the NKJ version. But we aren't. Aside from the early issues regarding the copyright held by the RLDS, I wonder if Church leaders were aware of the commentary Joseph seems to have used as a significant resource.

 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap."

Wow.  That's a pretty damning statement. 

Not really. I've always suspected as much. JS was no longer using a urim and thummim or even a seer stone. It is obvious that the longer emendations such as Moses were not derived from a third party work. The Joseph Smith Matthew is not really mysterious either. The JST Matthew largely results from combining Matthew and Luke in order to complete the picture. It's not like Joseph Smith came up with it from nowhere. Most of the small grammatical changes to the KJV made by Joseph Smith largely reflect his concern that "the Bible" was not translated as correctly as it should be. So he used a study guide to help him decipher the Greek. I would do the same thing. That would point out areas where scholarship felt the KJV translators may not have gotten things quite correctly, which further would give him something to study and pray about. I've always considered this is probably what JS largely did with the JST NT. It obviously was not like the revelation he received directly from the Lord in response to prayer in giving us D & C. It was more like sitting down to study the NT, finding areas of concern, and praying about them. Obviously, one of the tools he used to find areas of concern was Clarke's Commentary. I don't know why that is supposed to be "damning." I personally don't find much wrong with the Greek NT. That seems to be fairly well confirmed with the Syriac Peshitta. JS didn't bring up the addition of the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-9. The main issues arise with translation and punctuation. It is clear that the Lord did not speak to him as he paged through the NT or he would have been done quite quickly - it only took him months to translate the whole BoM. When it came to most of the JST it was obviously a matter of sitting down and studying it out, and praying about it. It wouldn't surprise me if additional NT study guides he used were found. In fact I've always used most of the JST as more of a study guide than as a source of direct revelation. I don't always agree with Joseph's inspirations on the text. But to the extent that he clarifies the English translation from the Greek, I find the JST useful. In some places he is giving a prophetic interpretation rather than a real textual correction, which I think can be important to understand. I find it quite relevant that JS doesn't find any large sections of the NT missing. There are really no large emendations. Like I said the JST Matthew is really a harmonization with Luke. I think that should serve to make the Church more comfortable with our NT. I am tired of the claims of critics that LDS Christians do not really believe the Bible. We should respond that we believe the Bible moreso than any other Church. We should be touting to read the NT for in it we find our Savior's words of life, and the key to opening the OT. This is especially true in concert with the BoM. Well, I'll stop there as I seem to be crawling up on a soapbox. Anyway, nothing really concerning with this claim. We should welcome any truths from whatsoever source which made the JST more readable and meaningful than the KJV of the NT.

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But to give an example, there are a few places in the D&C that quote Song of Solomon even thought the JST process had Joseph designating it as false. 

Don't you mean as "uninspired?" JS said the apocrypha were uninspired too, but the Lord did say that much was useful information in the apocrypha. Just because the Lord didn't inspire the work, doesn't mean it is false.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not really. I've always suspected as much. JS was no longer using a urim and thummim or even a seer stone.

Ok.  Thanks (I'd asked about that above).

So, maybe the word "translation" is once again possibly not the most accurate word to use?  I know the definition seems to have been reinvented for that word, but for most members (that I'm in touch with), the definition still remains the same for them.

Maybe a talk in general conference on the shift in meaning would be a good topic for members to become more up to date?

Edited January 18, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

This is interesting:

Quote

Many of Smith's revisions to the Bible led to significant developments in the doctrines of Mormonism.  During the process of translation, when he came across troubling biblical issues, Smith often dictated revelations relevant to himself, his associates, or the church. About half of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are in some way connected to this translation process, including background on the Apocrypha (LDS D&Csection 91 CoC D&C 88), the three degrees of glory (LDS section 76 CoC Section 85), the eternal nature of marriage and plural marriage (LDS section 132), teachings on baptism for the dead (LDS section 124 CoC Section 107), and various revelations on priesthood (LDS sections 84, 88, 107 CoC Sections 83, 104).

 

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  Thanks (I'd asked about that above).

So, maybe the word "translation" is once again possibly not the most accurate word to use?  I know the definition seems to have been reinvented for that word, but for most members (that I'm in touch with), the definition still remains the same for them.

Maybe a talk in general conference on the shift in meaning would be a good topic for members to become more up to date?

I'd have to say it wasn't really a translation in the usual sense of the word, so agree with you here. I don't think he was making a new translation from the Greek. I think he was using study tools to help him find problem areas in the text, which were usually found by others, and then praying about them. I do agree that the KJV is not always the most accurate translation - especially when it comes to the OT. If I talk more here, I'm sure to bring up debate..... but the KJV does adopt many ideas from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text, and sometimes follows the MT too closely IMHO. Sometimes it just fails to render a good translation of either. Of course this is all imho. 

So what should we call it? It seems the RLDS beat us to the JS Inspired Version, but how about the Joseph Smith Inspired Annotated? That seems to best match how I use it anyway.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Not really. I've always suspected as much. JS was no longer using a urim and thummim or even a seer stone.

That's not as clear as some make it out. Quoting from that interview I linked to earlier. 

Quote

There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible.

And

Quote

It’s been commonly said — and there’s a lot of history here that we’re also engaging as we talk about these; there’s things in the popular notion about what the JST is — that the prophet didn’t use the Urim and Thummim in the JST. That will be a statement made quite a bit after the prophet’s lifetime is ended.

A colleague, Mike McKay, uncovered a journal reference to a contemporary who has a statement recording the Prophet saying he used the Urim and Thummim. So now we have two competing statements: the Urim and Thummim was used (and Joseph actually says — and I’m paraphrasing here — that “I saw the entire Bible, and it laid before me,” and he talks about it in those terms). Then you have later people who came into the process and said, “No, the Prophet didn’t use the Urim and Thummim.”

His view was that the U&T/seer stone was used for Genesis but not for the New Testament. My personal suspicion is that it was a bit of combination but I don't think we can know.

Edited January 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For your first point, I think its important to note that when the authors say these long insertions "have not obvious textual source" it doesn't mean there isn't a textual source, just that they haven't found the textual source.  So I don't think assuming these long insertions are the "Lord's mind to a prophet" is a smart default assumption.  I think its wiser to just assume that we don't know where Joseph got those ideas from today, but that doesn't mean we won't find some evidence in the future.  The absence of evidence in this case is not evidence for a divine voice.  

I think the smartest default assumption is to not take the JST “long insertions” as canon, and to not include them with the Bible, which by canon, is “the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Viewing these first two types of changes as representative of the first kind of revelation I mentioned ("Lord's mind to a prophet") is a matter of faith until a primary textual source is produced, at which point either the mind of the Lord or the discerning use of a scholarly commentary might be used to further understanding of their respective kinds. Note that faith in one proposition and waiting for evidence of another each represent admissions of ignorance, without which no one gets anywhere.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

On your second point, I'd like to understand why you're saying the JST isn't canon.  We have large excerpts of it in our the LDS standard works today.  By definition, aren't those canon?  

“Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation But I suppose that if one desires, he may treat the JST excerpts and footnotes as canon.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think it's correct to say the JST is unfinished, depending upon what you mean by that. Certainly it didn't restore some pristine original text and so is unfinished in that sense. But then I'm not at all convinced the process was ever intended to do that. Rather I think it was to get Joseph, who was then still quite ignorant, to carefully read the Bible and use that as a catalyst for further revelation.

There are certainly many ways to interpert what I said to be incorrect. Thank you for asking me to clarify as to what I mean: It doesn’t appear that Joseph ever finished his project, to use your observation, “to carefully read the Bible and use that as a catalyst for further revelation,” or whatever other purpose he or the Lord might have had in mind.

Edited January 18, 2018 by CV75

[cinepro]

I don't know about anyone else, but my first thought was "Thank goodness an LDS scholar at BYU found this first!"

Can you imagine what the apologetics on this would look like if that weren't the case?