champatsch Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 On 2/29/2020 at 2:42 PM, CA Steve said: If the Church were to publish a version of the KJB with those 14-15 books, many members might be surprised to encounter names like these . From 2 Maccabees 1:36 Quote 36 And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi. This kind of textual evidence is very weak, compared to the very strong textual evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't the result of Joseph cribbing from a King James Bible. Biblical Nephi is not a personal name and is the result Jerome's very early mistranslation of the Septuagint reading, which is Nephthai. The error entered the English Bibles with the Coverdale Bible, persisting through the King James Bible (at least; although Nephi's not in the Geneva Bible).
2BizE Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 9:36 PM, sunstoned said: Joseph Smith's bible also included quite a significant amount of material lifted directly from Adam Clarke's famous Bible commentary. The link below is the BYU paper that discusses this. I think the research is very aptly named: "A Recently Recovered Source, Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 One word: plagiarism 1
hope_for_things Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, 2BizE said: One word: plagiarism I think a much better term would be midrash. https://www.google.com/search?q=midrash+definition&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS854US854&oq=midrash&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l7.4300j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A great podcast that I like to listen to just elucidated on this subject when talking about how New Testament authors were creatively reinterpreting Old Testament prophecy to essentially see Jesus in those prophecies writing NT texts through a lens of the movement of Jesus. This clearly has been done throughout the Judaeo-Christian traditions. I see Mormonism as doing the same thing, reinterpreting Christianity through a modern restoration lens and viewing older scripture in new and creative ways. Peter Enns is the host of the podcast, a very good introduction to a Christian audience with a non-threatening tone. In case you're interested. https://thebiblefornormalpeople.podbean.com/e/episode-117-pete-enns-reading-the-old-testament-christotelicly/ 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 7 hours ago, champatsch said: ...................................... There are many differences between readings found in the book of Moses and the Phinney Bible, some of them complex. The totality of the evidence suggests that the book of Moses probably wasn't produced by Joseph working from a Phinney Bible. d'accord.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think a much better term would be midrash. https://www.google.com/search?q=midrash+definition&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS854US854&oq=midrash&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l7.4300j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A great podcast that I like to listen to just elucidated on this subject when talking about how New Testament authors were creatively reinterpreting Old Testament prophecy to essentially see Jesus in those prophecies writing NT texts through a lens of the movement of Jesus. This clearly has been done throughout the Judaeo-Christian traditions. I see Mormonism as doing the same thing, reinterpreting Christianity through a modern restoration lens and viewing older scripture in new and creative ways. Peter Enns is the host of the podcast, a very good introduction to a Christian audience with a non-threatening tone. In case you're interested. https://thebiblefornormalpeople.podbean.com/e/episode-117-pete-enns-reading-the-old-testament-christotelicly/ Quite right. Most readers have no idea the extent of intertextuality between OT and NT. The judgment of plagiarism is silly in view of ancient norms. 3
Calm Posted March 3, 2020 Posted March 3, 2020 If interested in the group, you can contact them or join the Facebook group here, but they give nothing away I can see about who they are so do it at your own risk. The Daybell thing is probably making me paranoid. https://m.facebook.com/groups/2661496327300741/
caspianrex Posted March 6, 2020 Author Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) I accidentally posted a comment about the Stick of Joseph in the Hand of Ephraim on this thread, instead of on the thread I had started on that subject. Sorry for any confusion. I thought one could delete a reply if needed? But I was only able to edit. Edited March 6, 2020 by caspianrex posted comment on wrong thread
Calm Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 2 hours ago, caspianrex said: I accidentally posted a comment about the Stick of Joseph in the Hand of Ephraim on this thread, instead of on the thread I had started on that subject. Sorry for any confusion. I thought one could delete a reply if needed? But I was only able to edit. No deletions except by mods. We could back when the board began ago iirc.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 19, 2020 Posted August 19, 2020 (edited) The following announcement just appeared in Interpreter online at https://interpreterfoundation.org/jackson-article-preview-did-joseph-smith-use-adam-clarke/ Quote Did Joseph Smith Rely on Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary? Forthcoming Article Says “No.” There has been a lot of discussion lately regarding whether Joseph Smith used scholarly references as practical resources as he translated the Bible. In two articles, Thomas A. Wayment has argued recently that Joseph Smith, in preparing his revision of the Bible, drew ideas from a contemporary Bible commentary by British scholar Adam Clarke.[1] A forthcoming article by Kent P. Jackson to be published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship argues that the evidence does not bear out this claim. Jackson argues that none of the examples Wayment provides can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained straightforwardly by other means. Jackson, a prolific scholar of the Joseph Smith Translation history and manuscripts, looks at the proposed examples of borrowing within the broader context of the revisions Joseph Smith made to the Bible. As one example of Jackson’s findings, he discovered that some of the revisions that are attributed to the influence of Clarke are identical to ones that Joseph Smith had already made repeatedly in earlier portions of the Bible, all without reference to Clarke. He states that Wayment did not examine the revisions in the context of Joseph Smith’s other revisions, thus missing important clues within the Joseph Smith Translation itself. In addition, he observes that there is a significant amount of material in Clarke that is not reflected in the Joseph Smith Translation, and there are many revisions in the Joseph Smith Translation that contradict what Clarke wrote in his commentary. Jackson concludes that the few resemblances that do exist are vague, superficial, and coincidental. Significantly, Wayment and his co-author in one of the articles, Haley Wilson-Lemmon, note that none of the “significant expansions” in the Joseph Smith Translation (e.g., excerpts from JST Genesis found in the the Book of Moses, Joseph Smith—Matthew) drew on Clarke’s commentary.[2] Jackson is quick to note that there is nothing wrong with the idea of Joseph Smith getting some ideas from an external source when revising the Bible and proposes some rare possible examples, none of which, he believes, come from Clarke. Look for Jackson’s article in the next few weeks in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. Edited August 19, 2020 by Robert F. Smith 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2020 Posted August 19, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 9:36 PM, sunstoned said: Joseph Smith's bible also included quite a significant amount of material lifted directly from Adam Clarke's famous Bible commentary. The link below is the BYU paper that discusses this. I think the research is very aptly named: "A Recently Recovered Source, Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 An article that will appear in Interpreter challenges the conclusion that Joseph lifted content from Clarke. I just started a thread in which I link to the blurb on the Interpreter website that synopsizes the forthcoming article. But here, for convenience, is that link again. https://interpreterfoundation.org/jackson-article-preview-did-joseph-smith-use-adam-clarke/ Coincidentally, I started my thread just before I noticed this post from you. I was unaware of your post beforehand.
Recommended Posts