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

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I view the JST additions at canonical. 

Does that also include the Bible dictionarey, the maps, the index, the chapter headings?  Where exactly do you draw the line.

Obviously JS did not consider it  canonical in its present form.

Edited January 21, 2018 by cdowis

[boblloyd91]

On 1/18/2018 at 2:27 PM, rongo said:

No. Not at all. I'm saying that the entire Book of Moses is completely "Adam Clarke-free." Enoch content, Moses background, expounded Adam and Eve material, Master Mahan, etc. You name it. 

 

 

Well, that's where it gets interesting. For example, the Book of Moses records a man named Mahijah confronting and contending with Enoch. Extra-biblical sources demonstrably unavailable to Joseph Smith (and not in Adam Clarke) likewise record a man named Mahijah or Mehujah (vowels differ) contending with Enoch. So, since this isn't in Clarke's commentary, and Joseph Smith couldn't have had access to the sources (they weren't available in English until after his time), the presence of authentic Enoch content in an expansion of Genesis is a witness of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And without Clarke's help . . .  

Thanks for reminding me of this, I remember that an institute teacher mentioned this being a bullseye, but forgot about it. If I recall wasn’t it Nibley who found this?

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Obviously JS did not consider it  canonical in its present form.

Can you support this claim with any evidence?  

[cdowis]

 

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you support this claim with any evidence?  

In case you are unaware, he did not approve this for publication, much less canonization.  I guess it is just plain old common sense.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

In case you are unaware, he did not approve this for publication, much less canonization.  I guess it is just plain old common sense.

It’s not that he didn’t approve it for publication, we don’t know the reasons it wasn’t published in his lifetime, but I’m unaware of any evidence that Joseph didn’t approve of it or that he in any way didn’t consider his work on the JST to be legitimate.  

Your common sense is a misreading of the historical evidence.  

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your common sense is a misreading of the historical evidence.  

Please help me. 

Show me where JS approved the canonization and publication of the JST.  Show me exactly what I have misread  -- a link would be helpful

Help me!

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Please help me. 

Show me where JS approved the canonization and publication of the JST.  Show me exactly what I have misread  -- a link would be helpful

Help me!

You’re turning the question around, I asked you to show evidence to support your earlier statement.  What evidence do you have it wasn’t approved for publication?  Any statements from Joseph or contemporaries to support this assertion?  

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

he did not approve this for publication, much less canonization.

 

[cinepro]

Deseret News Headline:

"BYU Researchers Discover that Biblical Commentator Adam Clarke Was Also a Prophet."

[blueglass]

On 1/20/2018 at 11:37 AM, cdowis said:

  On 1/20/2018 at 12:12 AM, blueglass said:

Is it correct that JS incorporated these Clarke and Buck ideas as his own?  - Without any attribution to the sources used? 

Are unaware that the JST was never approved for publication -- it was still a work in progress at the time of his death.

Joseph called this an inspired translation - i.e. that by using the seer stone he saw in his mind's eye the original holographs and fixed the errors.  

Please give the source for the use of the seer stone for all the unique and completed content in the JST.  Please put this CFR in the context of my comment above -- that it was still a WIP, a rough draft not with final  edits.

The JST is not what you pretend it to be.

here are your cfr's.  

“We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father.”  History of the Church 1:368, July 2, 1833,

In wayment's interview he says Michael McKay found a new journal entry contemporary to the time which says Joseph used the urim and thummim when translating the jst.  The entry says, "I saw the entire Bible, and it laid before me,”

sec7 in the introduction says they used the urim and thummim and that "The revelation is a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."  

as you know all references to the urim and thummim after the loss of the 116 pages is anachronistic as he only used the brown and white seer stones.   See footnote 20 of the book of mormon translation essay.

Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, Utah State University, 2000).

Also see footnote 21 for the U&T words used when in fact it was the seer stone presented.

[For example, when Joseph Smith showed a seer stone to Wilford Woodruff in late 1841, Woodruff recorded in his journal: “I had the privilege of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM.” (Wilford Woodruff journal, Dec. 27, 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.) See also Doctrine and Covenants 130:10.]

Also see Robert Matthews on the JST:   “The plain and precious missing parts have not yet been made known through manuscripts and scholars, but are available only through the Book of Mormon, the Joseph Smith Translation, and modern revelation through the instrumentality of a prophet."

Joseph said he was working to restore the bible to its original purity.  See The evening and morning star July 1833:

"As to the errors in the bible any man possessed of common understanding, knows that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contraditions, which much be the work of men.  As the Church of Christ will soon have the scriptures,  in their original purity it may not be amiss for us to show a few of the gross errors, or as they might be termed, contradictions".  

Robert J. Matthews, “The Book of Mormon as a Cowitness with the Bible and as a Guide to Biblical Criticism,” in Symposium on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 57.

Matthews:  "over six hundred JST alterations within our presently accepted and recommended Bible—should do much toward removing fears or hesitation toward Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. Recently Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke to a group of Church educators and said":

McConkie on the JST :  "For historical and other reasons there has been, among some members of the Church in times past, some prejudice and misunderstanding of the place of the Joseph Smith Translation. I hope this has now all vanished away. Our new Church Bible footnotes many of the major changes made in the Inspired Version and has a seventeen-page section which sets forth excepts that are too lengthy for inclusion of footnotes.  Reference to this section and to the footnotes themselves will give anyone who has spiritual insight a deep appreciation of this revelatory work of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is one of the great evidences of his prophetic call."

In addition in seminary the JST is used authoritatively as scripture in this seminary preservice manual (see twelve keys), key 9:  "Key Nine: Use and Rely on the Joseph Smith Translation, the So-called Inspired Version"

 "It can scarcely be stated with too great an emphasis. The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth. It contains all that the King James Version does, plus pages of additions and corrections and an occasional deletion. It was made by the spirit of revelation, and the changes and additions are the equivalent of the revealed word in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants."

https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-bible-a-sealed-book?lang=eng

More recently in the new curriculum 2015 for college students the course Foundations of the Restoration states that the JST is part of the open canon.   See here in the instructors manual for the new course

" God continues to speak to modern prophets, the canon of scripture remains open. Additional scriptures brought forth in our day—such as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the book of Abraham—confirm, clarify, and expand our understanding of the gospel."

 

[blueglass]

A quick search of the general conference corpus shows a dramatic increase in the use of the JST in the 2000's (49 citations vs only 3 in the 1990's).  

For example recently Elder Renlund used the JST to refer to additional insight on the woman taken in adultery.  We all know the pericope John 7:53-8:11 is bracketed in modern translations of the bible.  Here's something not found in the earliest greek manuscripts of the bible, yet we have a JST on the story?   Not to say I don't like this specific example of prophetic "midrash"!  The main problem I have is with direct copying without attribution to the sources.  

Source information: . Date 2017 Title Our Good Shepherd Author Dale G. Renlund

Expanded context:

the woman standing in the midst. " When Jesus saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? " She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. " Surely, the Savior did not condone adultery. But He also did not condemn the woman. He encouraged her to reform her life. She was motivated to change because of His compassion and mercy. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible attests to her resultant discipleship: " And the woman glorified God from that hour, and believed on his name. " While God is empathetic, we should not mistakenly believe that He is accepting and open-minded about sin. He is not. The Savior came to earth to save us from our sins and, importantly, will not save us in our sins.16 A skilled interrogator, Zeezrom once tried to trap Amulek by asking: " Shall the coming Messiah save his people in their sins

[2BizE]

So to paraphrase the article...Joseph Smith plagiarized Adam Clarke's book on Bible comments to create a large part of his Bible translation.  

Edited January 23, 2018 by 2BizE

[Tacenda]

On 1/18/2018 at 12:34 PM, cinepro said:

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?  

I can only imagine. And I wonder if this might cause the apologetic to feel sideswipped.

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

So to paraphrase the article...Joseph Smith plagiarized Adam Clarke's book on Bible comments to create a large part of his Bible translation.  

So. you are saying  Matt 24, the Book of Moses.the information on Enos and Melchizedek   etc etc came from Adam Clark, is that correct?  Can you give us specific quotes from his book.  Without seeing the comparison of the two books,  I would guess that his book provided minor tweeks and the substantive additions came from revelation.

I could be wrong so help me out here.

Edited January 23, 2018 by cdowis

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

So. you are saying  Matt 24, the Book of Moses.the information on Enos and Melchizedek   etc etc came from Adam Clark, is that correct?  Can you give us specific quotes from his book.  Without seeing the comparison of the two books,  I would guess that his book provided minor tweeks and the substantive additions came from revelation.

I could be wrong so help me out here.

The authors of the study note the different types of changes and additions made in the JST (emphasis added):

Quote

In categorizing Smith’s larger project of retranslating the Bible, Barlow has argued that Smith’s changes can be categorized into five different categories.⁵ While this essay has only dealt with some of Barlow’s proposed categories of changes, it is helpful in conclusion to see the larger constellation of changes made to the Bible. Barlow’s five categories can be summarized briefly as follows:

1. Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source (we have defined these as belonging to Smith’s revelatory intent)

2. Theological corrections

3. Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text

4. Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels⁶

5. Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.

Given the new evidence presented in this paper, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s numbers three through five appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

 

So they would support your guess/observation that the "revelatory" parts of the JST that introduced long passages of new content weren't dependent on Clarke's commentary.

As for specific instances of what was borrowed material and what was original material, each would have to be investigated on their own.

Here ya go!

https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1810_clarke_commentary.html

[provoman]

here is a post from the author how the project/research got started

How did it click? We're you reading Clarke's Commentary and noticed similarities, or did you come across other documentation that linked JS to owning/reading Clarke?

 

"co author Haley"   I found the parallels first. I just got curious and looked up some JST passages in Matthew and compared them to Clarke while I was sitting in a boring Sunday school class in June 2015. It went from there.

[Tacenda]

Haley's testimony apparently bites the dust after researching for this. 

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/05/haley-lemmon-joseph-smith-translation-revelation-plagiarism/

Haley Wilson Lemmon sits down with us today to discuss the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.   Haley worked with BYU Professor Thomas A Wayment in looking into what possible sources Joseph Smith used in his Bible translation.  The major discovery here was that Joseph Smith “direct borrowed” or plagiarized heavily from Adam Clarke’s Commentary in order to carry out his Bible translation.  There is a multiple of tangents we take this conversation
–  What led to this research?
– How pervasive this plagiarism was.
– Was there any pushback from BYU or the Church leadership?
– Was there any pressure to edit certain ideas out?
– Joseph use of other sources in his work such as Buck’s Dictionary
– How this demonstrates once again how problematic the Church’s narrative is
– The imposed need to redefine what it meant for Joseph to translate
– How understanding Joseph Smith on this issue sheds light on his other “translations”.
– How this either speaks to Joseph Smith being a genius or it imposes that Joseph had other sources by his side in his translation work and what that means for other works including the book of abraham but namely the book of Mormon
– Does the Book of Mormon utilize Clarke’s Commentary?
– What can we infer about Sidney Rigdon’s involvement
– How her and Wayments write-up is in their mind the most faithful way to interpret the data.
– The difficult position the Church is in with its narrative falling apart
– How BYU censured her regarding her blog about her faith crisis
– Where Haley is at today in her faith journey

Resources:
Adam Clarke’s Commentary

[carbon dioxide]

It is pretty clear to me that Joseph used the Adam Clarke source as a source for making corrections or changes in the JST from the KJV account.  For example

    KJV James 1:2: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;"
    JST James 1:2: "My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into many afflictions;"

The Adam Clarke commentary says  "Count it all joy - The word πειρασμος, which we translate temptation, signifies affliction, persecution, or trial of any kind; and in this sense it is used here, not intending diabolic suggestion, or what is generally understood by the word temptation." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/james-1.html

It should be noted that the following Bible versions also follow the Adam Clark and JST.   New Century Version "many kinds of troubles";  New American Standard, New KJV, and RSV "various trials";  NIV and New English Bible "trials of many kinds"

What do I conclude from this?  Joseph apparently felt that it was ok to consult other sources in the work regarding the JST or Inspired version. We was studying good books to find truth in things.  Nothing wrong with this.  I believe the end product is more important to God than anything else.  Whether the change was made only by some sort of direct revelation from God (The Holy Ghost telling Joseph to change this without any outside source) or Joseph being inspired to make a change after consulting an outside source (Adam Clark work) does not matter in the end.  Joseph had the courage to make the change in his work .  A lot of people probably would not have done that in his day since the KJV was almost seen as sacred itself.  Some people today think that.   Some JST changes came from existing sources available to Joseph and changes were made and in cases where existing sources did not exist (like really the entire Book of Moses) only revelation was the way to restore or bring back that information.  God expects us to use what we have available to us and do our own work and in times we can't do that, God will help out if we ask.  It is not an all or nothing deal.  I love the JST and see it as "inspired" but what is most important to me is the information that it provides. The process or source of each individual change, addition, subtraction, ect is not that important to me as long as its correct. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Haley's testimony apparently bites the dust after researching for this. 

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/05/haley-lemmon-joseph-smith-translation-revelation-plagiarism/

– How this either speaks to Joseph Smith being a genius or it imposes that Joseph had other sources by his side in his translation work and what that means for other works including the book of abraham but namely the book of Mormon

I love this argument as if to suggest that a genus would never read or use other sources.  Steven Hawking was considered a genius by many.  I am sure he read works by others and learned things from others. If he used information that he he learned from others in a speech or book, it still would not make him less of a genius.  Even if he forgot or neglected to cite a source, he still would be a genius.  Its not an either/or proposition as this point suggests.  Some people might nitpick things to the point that it results in their own damnation if they are not careful.

Edited May 12, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Duncan]

it saddens me that the lady author is no longer a believer and that Bill Reel man is celebrating that but I also find it interesting Dr. Thomas Wayment is still a believer, what does he know that the lady doesn't? I think he gave a podcast interview so I guess I should ch ch check it out

[SouthernMo]

This is interesting. Not surprising but interesting.

When I read things like this, I try and ask myself if I should re-evaluate that man as a prophet, or re-evaluate my expectations of that prophet.  Which is healthier?  Which is more rational?

The former approach - when taken to the extreme - would seem to soon disallow any revelation to have a root in information.

The latter approach - when taken to the extreme - would seem to soon revise a prophets role to no more than a well-informed man.

[carbon dioxide]

13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is interesting. Not surprising but interesting.

When I read things like this, I try and ask myself if I should re-evaluate that man as a prophet, or re-evaluate my expectations of that prophet.  Which is healthier?  Which is more rational?

The former approach - when taken to the extreme - would seem to soon disallow any revelation to have a root in information.

The latter approach - when taken to the extreme - would seem to soon revise a prophets role to no more than a well-informed man.

I guess the solution is don't take things to extremes. Perhaps prophets are people who God reveals truth to from time to time but when God is not revealing truth to them, they are to find truth on their own through their own study and efforts.  Perhaps God does not want mindless robots for prophets who simply rely on God to do all the work.  Perhaps God wants prophets and us generally to work for truth.  When we find truth we are better.  If we can't find truth to something and we have put forth our best effort, God then helps us out and reveals to us something we could not know by ourselves and our efforts. 

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps she just wanted an excuse.

ah, could be

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:36 PM, Duncan said:

it saddens me that the lady author is no longer a believer and that Bill Reel man is celebrating that but I also find it interesting Dr. Thomas Wayment is still a believer, what does he know that the lady doesn't? I think he gave a podcast interview so I guess I should ch ch check it out

Hey Duncan.  Wife and I get this from family all the time--"well if Dr. so and so can still believe and you don't...that means you're wrong...because a smart person believes and you don't".  It's a sad thing to respond to on a couple of levels.  1.  Everyone believes something.  We simply believe different things.  We've gotten tired of others telling us that they are special and have been given he gift to believe, dismissing any notion that there is belief outside of the Church.  2.  Why can't we simply realize that some people will see these things and find reason to maintain alignment with the Church, and yet others will not?  It is not a qualitative difference here.  It is a relative difference.  Persons as it turns out have different experiences leading them to see things a little differently.  

[stemelbow]

I can't help but feel a bit hung up on the phrase "frequently influenced" that appeared in the summary:

Quote

Given the new evidence presented in this paper, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s numbers three through five appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

I'm left wondering about a few things as it pertains to this study:

1.  Must we assume then that numbers 1 and 2 were not ever influenced by Clark?  Would that make sense?  They don't seem to be shutting that possibility down.  

2.  Frequently makes me wonder how often.  50% or more I"d assume.  That's a lot of influence.  

Quote

  It is more likely that Clarke provided grammatical, historical and linguistic aide to Smith as he carried out his work. Therefore, it can be argued that Clarke was less a theological resource than he was a practical one and, by means of Sidney Rigdon, Smith likely became familiar with the commentary and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the “translation” process.⁷

This seems to reinforce the question of then was Clarke not only a practical source, but was in some measure a theological one?  Since it is more likely that Clarke provided grammatical, historical and linguistic aide, is there reason to think he also did not provide theological aide...we just don't know how much that would be.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Duncan.  Wife and I get this from family all the time--"well if Dr. so and so can still believe and you don't...that means you're wrong...because a smart person believes and you don't".  It's a sad thing to respond to on a couple of levels.  1.  Everyone believes something.  We simply believe different things.  We've gotten tired of others telling us that they are special and have been given he gift to believe, dismissing any notion that there is belief outside of the Church.  2.  Why can't we simply realize that some people will see these things and find reason to maintain alignment with the Church, and yet others will not?  It is not a qualitative difference here.  It is a relative difference.  Persons as it turns out have different experiences leading them to see things a little differently.  

that's the thing though, this lady and this Prof. Wayment, neither of whom I know or have ever heard of before must be operating under different mental schemas and see things differently and what really unlaces my skates is not so much them but others who trumpet either view as the only one or correct one. It's one thing try to convince someone to their side, we do it all the time but another as saying that view is the correct one