Jump to content

Did Joseph Smith Really Draw on Adam Clarke's Commentary for the Joseph Smith Translation?


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Townsend's upcoming paper, if I am not mistaken, is focused on Clarke's influence in the Isaiah of the Book of Mormon. It wouldn't engage Jackson's work much. 

Certainly not directly.  I believe you are correct in what it is about.  But the point is if it can be shown that Joseph used and was familiar with Clarke when he did his BoM work, then it might lend more credibility to the propositions regarding Clarke's works and the JST.  Still I'd say the main concern is Jackson may not even be all the familiar with the degree of involvement Clarke's work has on the JST because what is published is but a snippet, as I understand it, of what was discovered on that matter.  

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I think my comment has been misunderstood. It's my fault for not being more precise. I believe that divine revelation is needed for anything to become doctrine, however, I do think that it's reasonable for God to highlight truths that Joseph found in the world around him. In that sense I don't think that every single doctrine we have needed to be delivered direct from heaven without any intermediary. It's possible that the Spirit confirmed the truth of some doctrines to Joseph Smith which he found in his environment. To my mind, that is not any less a revelation. Paul taught truths which were found in the world around him (cf. Acts 17:28). Jesus Christ referenced the scriptures of his day and possibly even the Setne story in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This does not bother me; it would be foolish to presume that children of God could be so totally blind as to miss all truth and represent none of it in their sacred musings. 

I got your position and certainly I put it in an unfair and sarcastic way for effect.  I should not have.  SOmetimes I can't help myself.  

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

This, however, is nowhere close to what I intended to say:

I do not believe that God didn't reveal "anything new" to Joseph. On the contrary, He revealed quite a bit. I think that your view of revelation is unnecessarily narrow, but that definition of revelation sure makes for good mockery, doesn't it? That's no apologetic, that's a mockery. 

Fair enough.  I took some liberties.  I certainly did not intend to convey what you meant or thought.  I meant to convey where it seems the line of reasoning you laid out, might lead to.  Meaning certainly I took it quite a be further than you intended.  While I realize my comments came off as mockery, and there was certainly some intent there, they also were not meant in pure jest with no other purpose than to offend.  I simply think what you described, and described again in this post, might take an apologetic even further down the road.  But we'll see.  I could be wrong.  

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Edit: As a sidenote, imagine somebody saying that "Paul just got the idea that we are children of God from Greek poets!" 

Why would that be wrong?  I mean to say it certainly might be.  It might be that the idea of being children of God was something had by people before Greek poets and they simply borrowed the idea.  The issue is, I would call, the presumption of primacy.  Was Paul inspired?  Surely some say he was, so whatever he says, scripturally, is inspired by God.  Ok.  But others do not see Paul as inspired, at least not in the same sense.  So when he makes statements, and someone calls them scripture, it's merely him speaking based on experiences.  Now that certainly can carry some form of inspiration, but it need not include God and it need not mean much more than Paul deriving his ideas from other sources.  It's all a matter of what you, as the individual you, might presume where his words come from...Do you prioritize Paul as a source of God's word, or do we not?  I do not, you do, or might.  

Link to post

There are two important aspects to this discussion, and to this point, both seem to be ignored.

First, what is the nature of the evidence that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found? In the article in Producing Ancient Scripture they necessarily provide a few examples (16?). Wayment indicates that there are over 100. So we have a sample, not the full extend of the influence of Clarke. Second, the types of changes really aren't momentous, but the very nature strongly suggests that it cannot be coincidental.

Second, we have to wonder what Jackson's arguments are, since the article hasn't been published. I saw an early draft and can only give opinions on that. It is possible that important things have changed, but from the way it has been advertised, I doubt it. I found the arguments unsound and while dismissive of the idea, really didn't deal well with the nature of the evidence. 

Until Jackson's article is published, little can be said about it. However, just as the advertisement suggests that it is a rebuttal, I will suggest that it is an ineffective one.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
19 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

There are two important aspects to this discussion, and to this point, both seem to be ignored.

First, what is the nature of the evidence that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found? In the article in Producing Ancient Scripture they necessarily provide a few examples (16?). Wayment indicates that there are over 100. So we have a sample, not the full extend of the influence of Clarke. Second, the types of changes really aren't momentous, but the very nature strongly suggests that it cannot be coincidental.

Second, we have to wonder what Jackson's arguments are, since the article hasn't been published. I saw an early draft and can only give opinions on that. It is possible that important things have changed, but from the way it has been advertised, I doubt it. I found the arguments unsound and while dismissive of the idea, really didn't deal well with the nature of the evidence. 

Until Jackson's article is published, little can be said about it. However, just as the advertisement suggests that it is a rebuttal, I will suggest that it is an ineffective one.

 

Wow.  Seeing an early draft would be nice.  Thanks for the insight.  

Link to post
19 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

There are two important aspects to this discussion, and to this point, both seem to be ignored.

First, what is the nature of the evidence that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found? In the article in Producing Ancient Scripture they necessarily provide a few examples (16?). Wayment indicates that there are over 100. So we have a sample, not the full extend of the influence of Clarke. Second, the types of changes really aren't momentous, but the very nature strongly suggests that it cannot be coincidental.

Second, we have to wonder what Jackson's arguments are, since the article hasn't been published. I saw an early draft and can only give opinions on that. It is possible that important things have changed, but from the way it has been advertised, I doubt it. I found the arguments unsound and while dismissive of the idea, really didn't deal well with the nature of the evidence. 

Until Jackson's article is published, little can be said about it. However, just as the advertisement suggests that it is a rebuttal, I will suggest that it is an ineffective one.

 

A few questions:

Do we know that Jackson is limited in his analysis  to the examples provided in the Producing Ancient Scripture article, or is he privy to Wayment’s other citations as well?

Why does the nature of the examples “strongly suggest” they are not coincidental? My recollection from reading the JST is that some of the alterations the Prophet made are common sense, something that any astute writer might have come up with whether or not they were given to the Prophet via revelation. 
 

What occasioned your seeing an early draft of Jackson’s article? Were you invited to preview or peer-review it? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do we know that Jackson is limited in his analysis  to the examples provided in the Producing Ancient Scripture article, or is he privy to Wayment’s other citations as well?

As I remember, it was limited to the examples given.

Quote

Why does the nature of the examples “strongly suggest” they are not coincidental? My recollection from reading the JST is that some of the alterations the Prophet made are common sense, something that any astute writer might have come up with whether or not they were given to the Prophet via revelation. 

The analysis comes from looking at the changes and comparing them to the commentary. For example, in the KJV there is a verse mentioning unicorns. Joseph changed it to re-em. This was prior to the time he took Hebrew. Clarke notes that unicorns probably came from reemim, which (according to Wayment) is usually transliterated differently. Thus, the best explanation for the presence of re-em is that it is modeled on Clarke's suggestion. There are others that were dependent upon Clarke's discussion of the language (and in one case, a misunderstanding of Clarke). 

Now, I should state, as does Wayment, that none of these occurred in the revelatory sections of the JST. That is, they show only when the process shifted to a more mundane examination of the text. That parallels other changes that were not based on Clarke, but rather on attempting to enhance the logic of the text. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
5 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

As I remember, it was limited to the examples given.

The analysis comes from looking at the changes and comparing them to the commentary. For example, in the KJV there is a verse mentioning unicorns. Joseph changed it to re-em. This was prior to the time he took Hebrew. Clarke notes that unicorns probably came from reemim, which (according to Wayment) is usually transliterated differently. Thus, the best explanation for the presence of re-em is that it is modeled on Clarke's suggestion. There are others that were dependent upon Clarke's discussion of the language (and in one case, a misunderstanding of Clarke). 

Now, I should state, as does Wayment, that none of these occurred in the revelatory sections of the JST. That is, they show only when the process shifted to a more mundane examination of the text. That parallels other changes that were not based on Clarke, but rather on attempting to enhance the logic of the text. 

You’re not answering the question of how you came to see a draft, then? That’s fine. I was just curious. 

Link to post
17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re not answering the question of how you came to see a draft, then? That’s fine. I was just curious. 

I was one of perhaps five who were asked to do a pre-review. I should note that the others unanimously disagreed with me.

Edited by Brant Gardner
fixed typo
  • Like 2
Link to post

From an academic perspective I wonder if it would be better for Kent Jackson to base his upcoming paper on the hundreds of examples in Professor Wayment’s paper, rather than just the 16 examples?

Link to post
On 8/29/2020 at 2:26 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re not answering the question of how you came to see a draft, then? That’s fine. I was just curious. 

It is usual procedure when one is doing peer review, that that fact is not disclosed to anyone to preserve the freedom to disagree even with colleagues with whom might ordinarily agree, without political repercussions.

Link to post
On 8/28/2020 at 12:21 PM, Brant Gardner said:

There are two important aspects to this discussion, and to this point, both seem to be ignored.

First, what is the nature of the evidence that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon found? In the article in Producing Ancient Scripture they necessarily provide a few examples (16?). Wayment indicates that there are over 100. So we have a sample, not the full extend of the influence of Clarke. Second, the types of changes really aren't momentous, but the very nature strongly suggests that it cannot be coincidental.

Second, we have to wonder what Jackson's arguments are, since the article hasn't been published. I saw an early draft and can only give opinions on that. It is possible that important things have changed, but from the way it has been advertised, I doubt it. I found the arguments unsound and while dismissive of the idea, really didn't deal well with the nature of the evidence. 

Until Jackson's article is published, little can be said about it. However, just as the advertisement suggests that it is a rebuttal, I will suggest that it is an ineffective one.

 

I hear that it's possible that Joseph used Adam Clarke's book for the BoM as well. Have you heard that yet? If so, how do you feel about that, if you care to answer. I've always respected your input. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is usual procedure when one is doing peer review, that that fact is not disclosed to anyone to preserve the freedom to disagree even with colleagues with whom might ordinarily agree, without political repercussions.

Be that as it may, it appears in this instance that Brant has no problem with being candid about this particular  peer-review process (if indeed that’s what it is) or even about the disagreement with his conclusions by the rest of those involved. I didn’t think it would hurt to ask, nor, apparently, did Brant. 

Link to post
14 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

From an academic perspective I wonder if it would be better for Kent Jackson to base his upcoming paper on the hundreds of examples in Professor Wayment’s paper, rather than just the 16 examples?

Perhaps he is. I’m waiting to see. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hear that it's possible that Joseph used Adam Clarke's book for the BoM as well. Have you heard that yet? If so, how do you feel about that, if you care to answer. I've always respected your input. 

What’s your source that Joseph might have used Clarke for the Book of Mormon?

Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What’s your source that Joseph might have used Clarke for the Book of Mormon?

RFM is the person that mentioned it. I was just wondering if it could have happened.

C/P'd from intro:

Radio Free Mormon: 190: The Adam Clarke Connection

Now that new research has established the dependency of Joseph Smith’s Bible translation on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary, RFM launches into a spate of new and additional ideas and inferences that can be drawn from this conclusion.  RFM shows how the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary may not only have influenced the JST, but also the Book of Mormon and even the Book of Abraham!  That’s the sign post up ahead!  Your next stop, The Adam Clarke Connection!

ETA: Oh, I see Smac has posted a much better answer, thanks Smac!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now that new research has established the dependency of Joseph Smith’s Bible translation on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary,

Don't you just love the tone here? Settled science again !!

  • Like 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I am hearing that. So far, I checked about 10 chapters of Isaiah and didn't find anything. I confess I got bored and stopped. Since I haven't seen the evidence, there is really nothing to say. I suppose I could go through the rest of it--but did I mention boredom? I hate to admit it, but right now I am having a hard time to get motivated to work hard on a project that I know I need to do (and want to, at least on some level).

I appreciate your time, no worries on finding anything, time is everything at times like this! :)

Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Don't you just love the tone here? Settled science again !!

I wish your quote of me didn't make it appear that I said that, since I didn't, but I see that you were quoting what I c/p'd of what someone else said. 

Link to post

My mommie taught me not to draw on books

It's a shame if Joseph did that

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 8/31/2020 at 10:27 PM, strappinglad said:

Don't you just love the tone here? Settled science again !!

Heh. The power of the unchallenged “given.” Now that we “know” the world will end in 10 years, time to rush headlong into the New Green Deal (TM). Better start retrofitting or replacing your house. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Heh. The power of the unchallenged “given.” Now that we “know” the world will end in 10 years, time to rush headlong into the New Green Deal (TM). Better start retrofitting or replacing your house. 

Scott, are you trying to tell us you’re starting a new 10 year countdown clock? Mike Reed will be happy. 😁

Link to post
5 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Scott, are you trying to tell us you’re starting a new 10 year countdown clock? Mike Reed will be happy. 😁

Already started last year — at 12 years, her original doomsday declaration. It’s now at 10 years 4 months. 

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...