Jump to content

Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Influence in the Book of Mormon?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

We already know Joseph significantly depended on Adam Clarke’s work for the Bible translation.  If Adam Clarke’s influence is found in the Book of Mormon then there could be two reasons 1) the BoM is clearly a 19th century work, 2) Adam Clarke also used a magic rock to gain insight from God.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/jackson-article-preview-did-joseph-smith-use-adam-clarke/?fbclid=IwAR1iBKNZMH4B61HGR9OICBiMF_KGLvikpAWfdOOYBsSFXabqVBKpO4JcjAo

 

stay tuned!

  • Like 2
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You are correct. Nothing may come of this but as to your other point “you guys” imagining it’s conclusions.  I can’t speak for Robert Anderson, but I merely asked a question based on an assumption 

No conclusion have been drawn, at least not by me.

You asked:

Quote

Assuming that this supposed scholarly paper is successful in finding such influence, how exactly does one successfully navigate its influence in a record that claims ancient origins?  

Wouldnt its inclusion be further evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work and not based on an actual history?

These seem like closed-ended questions, like you have your mind made up (that a conclusion has been drawn) and are looking to us to change your mind about it.  Is that an inaccurate assessment?

That's not to say that the questions are per se inappropriate.  Just that they're weighted pretty heavily toward a particular perspective.

Quote

As to your assertion of my...”having to find [my] way out of the monomaniacal fever swamp you have created.”  You have a fixation for creating strawmen that you can then knock down.  Remember. You and I are on the same team. We both seek truth, at least I hope that is the team you are on.

We are all seeking truth, yes.

Online discussions are not the best way to communicate.  More or less plain text.  A few emojis.  "Online Disinhibitation Effect."  Lots of factors can impede discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post

Error 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Online discussions are not the best way to communicate.  More or less plain text.  A few emojis.  "Online Disinhibitation Effect."  Lots of factors can impede discussion.

Whatever!8P

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

From the link, written by Colby Townsend on 8/10:

Quote

Near the end of the episode he mentions that there is a scholar who is currently working on a paper that explores the extent of the influence of Clarke’s commentary on the Book of Mormon.
...
In the end I discovered roughly sixty or so variants that might have been influenced by Clarke’s commentary, with many clearly coming from that source.

Once I had a list of the strongest connections I went on a search for those specific phrases in eighteenth and nineteenth century literature. As outlined in my paper, the evidence supports the argument that the phrases found in many of the variants in the block quotations of the KJV in the Book of Mormon come from Clarke’s commentary. 
...
At this point in the process I am getting closer to a full draft of the paper but it is not yet ready to be submitted to a journal. It seemed like this was probably the time to more formally announce the discovery and identify myself as the author of the paper Radio Free Mormon had mentioned in his podcast. 

Sounds interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Whatever!8P

And yet he does so much of it, usually at a great length and full of certainty!  ;)  Oy Vey!

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

From the link:

Quote

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.

Huh.  Haley Lemmon was painting this as a momentous discovery.  Was it?  Did Lemmon turn against the Restored Gospel over a nothingburger?

We'll see, I suppose.

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post

Very interesting stuff.  I wonder what this does to the notion that Joseph did not use anything.  Was it Emma who declared he did not have any sources to read from (except for his rock and hat stuff)?  For the Bible stuff, if he used Adam Clarke, how did he hide that from Emma (who said he couldn't have hid it from her)?  

Or

If God inspired Joseph to make the same changes to Isaiah and other portions of the BIble to match that of Adam Clarke does that mean Adam Clarke was inspired by God and should be considered a prophet?  Maybe it was someone else from the 16th century whom God used to translate the plates into EmodE and that same translator decided to use Adam Clarke's commentary to fill in the Isaiah chapters, instead of using the KJB or an earlier version he could have been familiar with?  Maybe this is a signal that the KJB was too frought with errors to be considered all that useful to the heavenly folks?  

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

The full research is already out and published. It can be found in Producing Ancient Scripture from U of U Press: https://uofupress.lib.utah.edu/producing-ancient-scripture/

There is nothing in Producing Ancient Scripture by Colby Townsend? Are you confusing the Wayment essay  in Producing Ancient Scripture  with the OP question about Clarke usage in the BoM? Wayment's essay deals with Smith's use of Clarke's to produce the JST of the Bible not the BoM.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The rumored research has not even been reported (if it is even being done), and you guys are already imagining its conclusions.  That's not what scholars do.  It is, however, a polemic ploy devoid of ethical or intellectual claim.

Indeed, whatever the conclusions of whatever research, most people will be completely unaware of it, and go about their lives as normal.  You guys need to find your way out of the monomaniacal fever swamp you have created.

I've pretty much decided that historicity isn't that important to me.  If there is something to convince me otherwise, then I'd like to hear it.  Regarding the new research, I merely said it will be a big deal for some (if the Adam Clarke tie in to the book of mormon can be convincingly made).  Of course a lot of people don't pay attention to these issues.  Even so, let's see what the new research says.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I've pretty much decided that historicity isn't that important to me.  If there is something to convince me otherwise, then I'd like to hear it.  Regarding the new research, I merely said it will be a big deal for some (if the Adam Clarke tie in to the book of mormon can be convincingly made).  Of course a lot of people don't pay attention to these issues.  Even so, let's see what the new research says.

Yes, and if historicity is so important to someone, that may well influence the direction and conclusions of the research, thus tainting it.  Fruit of the poison tree, as it were.  I like it when pure, basic research is done, without anyone knowing ahead of time what it will show.  Just like Carmack, I do lots of basic research.  I'm not always sure what the results mean, but sometimes I am surprised.  It truly takes a community of scholars to make any real headway.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

.........................................

Cowdery and View of the Hebrews[edit]

......................... Fawn Brodie wrote that it "may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon, but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence."[48] ...............................

You will notice how quickly Fawn Brodie used "striking parallelisms" to argue for a connection, in much the same way the pro-Mormon apologists do.  Not being a historian was her main problem (she was an English instructor), and so demonstrated unprofessional and unscholarly judgment time and again.  Her biography of Joseph Smith was filled with major errors.

Link to post

Townsend says that the Modern Expansion Theory doesn't work for the Book of Mormon. I'd like to see why.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Townsend may indeed come out with the results of his research (using much of my early work), but this is only mention of it, not the actual research.  I am glad to hear of it, and I also like the Mark Thomas comments which were appended.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You are correct. Nothing may come of this but as to your other point “you guys” imagining it’s conclusions.  I can’t speak for Robert Anderson, but I merely asked a question based on an assumption 

No conclusion have been drawn, at least not by me.

As to your assertion of my...”having to find [my] way out of the monomaniacal fever swamp you have created.”  You have a fixation for creating strawmen that you can then knock down.  Remember. You and I are on the same team. We both seek truth, at least I hope that is the team you are on.

Seeking "truth" (whatever that is) may not be so easy as you assume.  There is a great distinction between by gosh and by golly methods, and those of scholarship.  You are the guy asking:

Quote

........how exactly does one successfully navigate its influence in a record that claims ancient origins?  

Wouldnt its inclusion be further evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work and not based on an actual history?

Scholars tend to wait to read the actual research data before drawing conclusions.

See my application of basic research in my paper at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf  .

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

A lot of things can come across as "a big reveal for some."

I have come to nearly the exact opposition conclusion.  See here.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not my particular case. My witness of the BOM is from God and under very unique and incontrovertible circunstances. However, one could (and many Evangelicals do) reject the BOM, Joseph as a prophet and the Church he organized while retaining a belief and faith in Christ based on the other (New) Testament of Jesus Christ. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

There is currently a rumor of a scholarly work being undertaken that will soon be published that exposes the influence of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in the Book of Mormon. Specifically the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters. 

Assuming that this supposed scholarly paper is successful in finding such influence, how exactly does one successfully navigate its influence in a record that claims ancient origins?  

Wouldnt its inclusion be further evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work and not based on an actual history?

No, more like evidence that Adam Clarke was a prophet of God who said and wrote about some of the same things mentioned in the Book of Mormon before he had even heard of the Book of Mormon.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Islander said:

It is not my particular case. My witness of the BOM is from God and under very unique and incontrovertible circunstances. However, one could (and many Evangelicals do) reject the BOM, Joseph as a prophet and the Church he organized while retaining a belief and faith in Christ based on the other (New) Testament of Jesus Christ. 

Kind of like how many Jews reject the New Testament, Jesus as their Messiah, and the Church he organized while retaining a belief and faith in a Messiah based on the other (Old) Testament of Jesus Christ. 

Link to post
55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Kind of like how many Jews reject the New Testament, Jesus as their Messiah, and the Church he organized while retaining a belief and faith in a Messiah based on the other (Old) Testament of Jesus Christ. 

No. There are millions of people that believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and the ONLY means of salvation. They believe that He came to the earth, took on flesh and died in the cross as an atonement for our sins. They have faith in Him and worship Him as their Savior every week. Just like we do. That is an undeniable fact. To say otherwise is to be in denial about what happens around us every day. In fact, I know many more people that are faithful, practicing Christian than members of the Church. My ward is tiny compared to other congregations around us. 

The fact remains that there are many millions of people that are practicing Christian but know nothing, or do not believe LDS theology. The fact that we have further truth and knowledge does not mean we have a monopoly on faith and belief in Christ. 

Link to post
15 hours ago, Islander said:

No. There are millions of people that believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and the ONLY means of salvation. They believe that He came to the earth, took on flesh and died in the cross as an atonement for our sins. They have faith in Him and worship Him as their Savior every week. Just like we do. That is an undeniable fact. To say otherwise is to be in denial about what happens around us every day. In fact, I know many more people that are faithful, practicing Christian than members of the Church. My ward is tiny compared to other congregations around us. 

i know.. I was a member of one of those other churches before I became a member of the true church of Jesus Christ.  I only meant that it is a similar situation, not exactly.  Jews worship God every week while they still wait for THE Messiah.  Members of other churches, other than ours and the Jews, believe Jesus is/was the Messiah\Christ but they don't know or believe nearly as much about him as we LDS do.  We know that not only was/is Jesus the Messiah\Christ who lived and organized his church among the Jews about 2000 years ago, that he has also restored his true church among us today, and we are members of it.  Jews and other Christians, other than us, reject many of the teachings Jesus taught and is still teaching today through his prophets.  

15 hours ago, Islander said:

The fact remains that there are many millions of people that are practicing Christian but know nothing, or do not believe LDS theology. The fact that we have further truth and knowledge does not mean we have a monopoly on faith and belief in Christ. 

I know.  You apparently just didn't understand what I meant.

Link to post

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this new article in Interpreter

https://interpreterfoundation.org/jackson-article-preview-did-joseph-smith-use-adam-clarke/

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.

 

 

 

[1] See Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84; Wayment, “Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision,” Journal of Mormon History 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.
[2] Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource,” 283.

 

 

by Administration | Aug 18, 2020

 
 
Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this new article in Interpreter

https://interpreterfoundation.org/jackson-article-preview-did-joseph-smith-use-adam-clarke/

That was mentioned a little bit earlier, but thank you for making sure! It purports to be an important article and I'm interested in seeing it.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...