Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

User avatar
cwald
God
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:53 am

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by cwald »

Downloaded.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson

User avatar
Craig Paxton
God
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Craig Paxton »

Do we know if Joseph Smith ever made any claims regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible? Did he ever make claims of revelation or inspiration or visitations regarding his JST? It would be interesting, particularly in light of his plagiarisms from Clark's Bible Commentary to know what he himself had actually claimed regarding the book. His statements on the book would be damning evidence of his efforts to commit fraud in getting his adherents to believe his prophetic claims.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick

“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka

User avatar
Craig Paxton
God
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Craig Paxton »

Question asked Question answered:

On the title page of the JST is this intoduction:

While translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery found they held different views on the meaning of a passage in the Bible. They “mutually agreed to settle” the question “by the Urim and [Thummim].” As a result, Joseph received a revelation giving the translation of an account by the ancient disciple John, written on parchment but lost to history. This early experience seeking revelation that expanded the text of a Bible passage was an important precedent. About a year later, during the summer of 1830, Joseph and Oliver received by revelation an account of a vision of Moses not found in the Old Testament. This revelation marked the beginning of Joseph Smith’s efforts to prepare an inspired revision or translation of the Bible. For the next three years, Joseph continued work on his “new translation of the Bible,” considering the project a “branch of [his] calling” as a prophet of God.1
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace

"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick

“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #1

Moving the parenthetical comment to the end of the verse


KJV Parenthetical Comment in BLUE
Col 2:20 KJV wrote:Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 KJV wrote:(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 KJV wrote:Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Adam Clarke explains that the practice of forbidden things causes one to perish so the parenthetical part belongs at the end rather than in the middle like it is in the muddled KJV:
Adam Clarke Commentary Verse 21 wrote:Touch not; taste not; handle not - These are forms of expression very frequent among the Jews. In Maccoth, fol. xxi. 1: "If they say to a Nazarite, Don't drink, don't drink; and he, notwithstanding, drinks; he is guilty. If they say, Don't shave, don't shave; and he shaves, notwithstanding; he is guilty. If they say, Don't put on these clothes, don't put on these clothes; and he, notwithstanding, puts on heterogeneous garments; he is guilty."

Here we see that Joseph Smith follows suit with Clarke's explanation that the parenthetical clause is out of place and belongs at the end; wherefore the JST puts it at the end where it belongs and the verse makes more sense.
JST wrote:Col 2:20 Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Col 2:21 Which are after the doctrines and commandments of men, who teach you to touch not, taste not, handle not--all those things which are to perish with the using,

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Some may say that the reference of the parenthetical commentary is somewhat weak in showing proof that Smith used Adam Clark's commentary. BUT, I shall now provide absolute evidence that Joseph Smith did in fact use the commentary to work out his early translation of the Old Testament -- called the Inspired Version. This is one of several bulls-eyes in showing that Smith stole from Clarke just like he stole from others. Add all the bulls-eyes together and the chances of Smith not borrowing from Clark becomes astronomical. No way! You can't deny that the sun is shining when you are outside looking at it.

Admit it, Smith used Clarke. See for yourself:
2 Chr 22:2 KJV wrote:Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:Forty and two years old was Ahaziah - See the note on 2 Kings 8:26. Ahaziah might have been twenty-two years old, according to 2 Kings 8:26; (note), but he could not have been forty-two, as stated here, without being two years older than his own father! See the note there. The Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and the Septuagint, in some copies, twenty. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was easy to mistake מ mem, Forty, for כ caph, Twenty. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between caph and mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.

The reading in 2 Kings 8:26; is right, and any attempt to reconcile this in Chronicles with that is equally futile and absurd. Both readings cannot be true; is that therefore likely to be genuine that makes the son two years older than the father who begat him? Apage hae nugae!
Sure enough, Smith stole from Clarke as if it was his own inspiration:
2 Chr 22:2 JST wrote:Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:34 pm
Sure enough, Smith stole from Clarke as if it was his own inspiration:
2 Chr 22:2 JST wrote:Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.
Of course the apologists may fall back and say that we really can't prove it but that Smith was truly inspired to change the age from 42 to 22 because the Spirit revealed it. I would simply counter that by pointing out that Smith also incorporated numerous KJV errors into his Book of Mormon and would the same Spirit instruct him to do that? But the apologist might snap back and insist that the age 22 revelation was a sign by God proving that Smith was truly translating the bible in a corrective spirit.

Sigh.

But the apologist will also have to take into consideration the king Jehoiachin discrepancy wherein the OT Kings account says he was 18 when he began to reign but the KJV Chronicles typo records age 8. What's interesting, however, is that Smith did not catch this particular error, whether by the Spirit of revelation or Adam Clark's commentary in which it is pointedly explained that that Chronicles is in error. Therefore, Smith failed to correct the king's lists which is something he should not have missed when you consider all the other finer points he corrected in comparing the Kings and Chronicles accounts.

See here how Smith failed to catch the error:
2 Kings 24:8 KJV wrote:Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2 Chr 36:9 KJV wrote:Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
What did Adam Clark have to say?
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:Jehoiachin was eighteen years old - He is called Jeconiah, 1 Chronicles 3:16, and Coniah, Jeremiah 22:24. In 2 Chronicles 36:9, be is said to be only eight years of age, but this must be a mistake; for we find that, having reigned only three months, he was carried captive to Babylon, and there he had wives; and it is very improbable that a child between eight and nine years of age could have wives; and of such a tender age, it can scarcely be said that, as a king, he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. The place in Chronicles must be corrupted.

That he was a grievous offender against God, we learn from Jeremiah 22:24, which the reader may consult; and in the man's punishment, see his crimes.
Did Joseph Smith steal from Adam Clarke and correct the account in the so-called Inspired Version of Chronicles?
2 Chr 36:9 JST wrote: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
Nope, Smith must have skipped over that part of Clarke's commentary. And he wasn't inspired to fix it. The Holy Ghost must have been out to lunch on that day. It just goes to show that Smith's work really wasn't all that inspired when you think about it.

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by consiglieri »

Excellent research, Shulem!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 11102
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by honorentheos »

Hey consig - have you ever talked on your podcast about your past time defending the Book of Mormon? I apologize for not being a regular listener but I think I'd be interested in that. It would be very interesting to have you, Shulem, and Philo spend some time talking about the experience and motivations behind looking for bulls eyes for what ended up being a Texas Sharp Shooter exercise.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #2

Omitting the parenthetical comment of an ENTIRE verse!


KJV Parenthetical Comment in BLUE
Luke 19:25 KJV wrote:(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Admittedly, this is a pretty short verse but some verses are even shorter such as: "Jesus wept", so it must be there for a reason, right? Or maybe not! What did Adam Clarke have to say?
Adame Clarke Commentary wrote:And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds - This whole verse is omitted by the Codex Bezae, a few others, and some copies of the Itala. It is probably an observation that some person made while our Lord was delivering the parable, with a design to correct him in the distribution: as if he had said, "Why give the mina to that person? he has got ten already; give it to one of those who has fewer."
So, what did Joseph Smith do with verse 25 in his version of the Inspired Bible? If you guessed that he copied the KJV, you'd be wrong. He did exactly what Adame Clarke suggested -- and it was omitted forthright.

It appears (or I should say disappears) that Smith stole from Clarke's work without giving him any credit. Smith has been known to steal ideas from others and incorporate them for his own uses.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #3

Stealing Clarke's Hebrew Unicorn


Isaiah said that unicorns will come down with cattle to meet their fate:
Isa 34:7 KJV wrote:And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
But what is a "uniciorn"? What was Smith to think when he was about to change the KJV to the JST? Smith's understanding would likely correspond to the 1828 Webster Dictionary:
Webster 1828 wrote:U'NICORN, noun [Latin unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Hmmm. Rhinoceros? I have to think that Smith must have been sorely intrigued with this and sought clarification. So, time to check Adam Clarke and see what he says! Smith knew that Adam Clarke understood the Hebrew language and would depend on him for what he has to say. Smith didn't know Hebrew. His meetings and lessons with instructor Joshua Seixas would not occur for several more years. Smith had therefore a very limited knowledge of Hebrew and must have relied on Adam Clarke's commentary for clarification and glean information thereby:
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:The unicorns shall come down - ראמים reemim, translated wild goats by Bishop Lowth. The ראם reem Bochart thinks to be a species of wild goat in the deserts of Arabia. It seems generally to mean the rhinoceros.
Little wonder, Smith stole Adam Clark's "reem" which is the translation for "unicorn". Where else would have Smith had learned such a thing? How did Smith pick up on the Hebrew if he had not gleaned it from Clarke?
Isa 34:7 JST wrote:And the reem shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Folks, Smith stole the unicorn and other men's wives. Why? Because he was horny (pun intended)!

:lol:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #4

Plural or single?

Luke 23:32 KJV wrote:And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
Adam Clarke was not happy with the construction of this sentence and pointing out that it tends to make Jesus a malefactor -- hence, the verse is poorly written.
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:Two other malefactors - Ἑτεροι δυο κακουργοι, should certainly be translated two others, malefactors, as in the Bibles published by the King's printer, Edinburgh. As it now stands in the text, it seems to intimate that our blessed Lord was also a malefactor.
So, if you guessed that Smith took Clarke's recommendation -- you're right, you get a prize!

Image
Luke 23:33 JST wrote:And there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Part II is up!

Radio Free Mormon: 190: The Adam Clarke Connection

Joseph Smith depended on the Adam Clarke Commentary to fashion his own so-called Inspired Version of biblical passages in making biblical corrections. The well guarded secret that Smith stole from Clarke has now been revealed in our day, finally, after 190 years the cat is out of the bag.

QUESTION:

Did Joseph Smith rely on Adam Clarke's Commentary to translate the Book of Mormon?

:surprised:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Wow, Radio Free Mormon dropped a bomb at the end of podcast (Part II) and I'm simply blown away. I learned something entirely new and am totally impressed with the implications of this amazing find via Dan Vogel! Church apologists have been known to brag about how inspired Smith was in associating the crocodile depicted in the lower section of Facsimile No. 1 with that of Pharaoh's god. Bear in mind that Smith was well aware that the bible associated the Egyptians with the worshiping of many gods, an idolatrous religion to the extreme. That's basic common knowledge of the Egyptian religion for anyone who knows the bible -- Adam Clarke was particularly aware of this.

But what of the crocodile? Was this an amazing hit? A bullseye as apologists have led us to believe?
Joseph Smith wrote:A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM NO. 1
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
First, let's keep in mind that Smith could have labeled any of the figures below the lion couch as a "god" and would have been correct in a most general sense. No matter where he threw the "god" dart he would have have gotten a hit. It would be like a blindfolded kid pinning the tail on the donkey when the rear end of the donkey was virtually the entire target. You can't lose! Easy peasy! Just throw the dart and say "it's a god"! You can't lose, you automatically win the prize! Nothing miraculous about it at all.

Radio Free Mormon cites Adam Clarke Commentary Ex. 1:1 for the reference, but that is incorrect, the reference of the crocodile associated with Pharaoh is Ex. 1:11. (You might want to edit that in your podcast, RFM).
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 1:11 wrote:It may be necessary to observe that all the Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was, took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne; a name which, in its general acceptation, signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning, as Bochart has amply proved, it signifies a crocodile, which being a sacred animal among the Egyptians, the word might be added to their kings in order to procure them the greater reverence and respect.
I think it's a safe bet that Smith referred to Adam Clarke when interpreting the crocodile in Facsimile No. 1 and took his recommendation, yet again.

What else is in the Adam Clarke Commentary which Smith stole for the Book of Abraham?

:question:

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6651
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Philo Sofee »

If memory serves me correctly, after I had written one of those really COOL apologetics papers where I cited well over 20 ancient sources showing this crocodile connection, asking how could Joseph Smith have known?, Brent Metcalfe gave me this reference and said mystery solved. It like totally stymied me. You mean there is a modern source to such a groovy evidence of antiquity?! Yep. I was pretty mad at Brent for a while after that.....All that hard work, and cool references to obscure sources making me look like I was really the cat's meow for apologetics and Joseph Smith, only to be shot down because I had narrowed the context to ONLY an ancient one, ignoring the modern stuff easily available to Joseph Smith. Metcalfe thwarted me good and proper!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:54 am
I had written one of those really COOL apologetics papers where I cited well over 20 ancient sources showing this crocodile connection
Yeah, ha ha.

How about this one:

Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as "Idolatrous god of Pharaoh"
The Backyard Professor wrote:Egyptologically, Joseph Smith’s description of the crocodile in facsimile #1 is absolutely precise.
Thanks, to Adame Clarke, so it seems.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #5

Qualify the phrase of scripture given

The following example seems rather nit-picky and of little consequence but it's another example (although tiny) that ties Smith to Clarke's commentary. Surely, Smith would have caught the opening line to what Clarke had to say about verse 16 and would not have dismissed it but adopt it because it makes perfect sense.
2 Tim 3:16 KJV wrote:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
What surely caught Smith's eye is in blue:
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original πασα γραφη θεοκνευστος ωφιλιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it.
Notice, Smith got rid of the "IS" and took Clarke's advice:
2 Tim 3:16 JST wrote:And all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #6

Get rid of the "testament" and the "testator"!

The bible bears testimony of the testament. That should seem well enough for most Christians to accept. But wait! You guessed it, Smith is going to once again take Clarke's advice and get rid of the testament written 6 times in Hebrews 9:15-20 and replace them in the JST with the word "covenant". Not only that, Smith replaced the words "testator" found in verses 16 & 17 of the KJV and replaced them with "victim".
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:He is the Mediator of the new testament - There was no proper reason why our translators should render διαθηκη by testament here, when in almost every other case they render it covenant, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew ברית berith, which see largely explained, Genesis 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

<snip>

"For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive."

He observes, "There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. Διαθεμενος is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as διατηκη, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes.
Smith, evidently failed to take Clarke's advice (continued in the Matthew commentary) when translating the famous JST version of Matthew 26:
Matt 26:24 JST wrote:For this is in remembrance of my blood of the new testament, which is shed for as many as shall believe on my name, for the remission of their sins.
What ever happened to the "new covenant"? That pesky new testament snuck its way into Smith's bible! Smith was obviously overwhelmed and wasn't up to the task of keeping his work consistent.

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by consiglieri »

I am also just now receiving information that the idea Egyptians practiced human sacrifice, though erroneous by contemporary standards, was also mentioned in Adam clarke's Bible commentary.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

Example #7

"Come, my love,let’s go to the field behind the barn!"

Knowing how much Joseph Smith loved women (especially 14 year old girls and other men's wives) it's inconceivable that Smith omitted the Song of Solomon from the Inspired Version. I'm afraid, or so it appears, Smith was persuaded by Adam Clarke that Solomon's songs were not inspired and therefore need not be included in the canon.
Adam Clarke Commentary wrote:But none of these things appear in this book: the name of God is not found in it; nor is it quoted in the New Testament.

<snip>

To conclude: I advise all young ministers to avoid preaching on Solomon's Song. If they take a text out of it, to proclaim salvation to lost sinners, they must borrow their doctrines from other portions of Scripture, where all is plain and pointed.
Clarke's commentary defines the title of the Old Testament book and also makes reference to song's in the plural and gives examples.
Adam Clarke commentary wrote:Introduction to the Canticles, or Song of Solomon

The book before us is called in the Hebrew השירים שיר Shir Hashshirim, "The Song of Songs;" or, "An Ode of the Odes:"

1. celebrated by his prophets for this cause, in holy songs; and those songs preserved with care to this day

2. Songs of Jayadeva

3. translation of the Song of Songs
The original manuscript available for view at the Joseph Smith Papers states that "The Songs of Solomon are not Inspired writings."


I have to think that Smith and his scribes perused Clarke's commentary and after viewing the word "Songs" multiple times in various context they had forgotten the actual name of the Book in the KJV of the Old Testament and the scribe mistakenly wrote "The Songs of Solomon" in the Inspired manuscript. Not that this is a big deal because it's not. But we are left to conclude that Smith consulted Clarke (borrowed his robes) in order to find out the real meaning of the bible!

:lol:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12041
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Radio Free Mormon: 187: “Borrowed Robes”–The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary

Post by Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:09 pm
I am also just now receiving information that the idea Egyptians practiced human sacrifice, though erroneous by contemporary standards, was also mentioned in Adam clarke's Bible commentary.
Ask and ye shall receive.

:smile:

Let's take a peek and see what we find, the third sampling is of particular interest:
Adam Clarke Commentary Gen 47:23 wrote:I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh -

Diodorus Siculus, lib. i., gives the same account of the ancient constitution of Egypt. "The land," says he, "was divided into three parts:

One belonged to the Priests, with which they provided all sacrifices, and maintained all the ministers of religion.
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 7:22 wrote:As it is well known that the Nile was a chief object of Egyptian idolatry, (See Clarke's note on Exodus 7:15;), and that annually they sacrificed a girl, or as others say, both a boy and a girl, to this river, in gratitude for the benefits received from it, (Universal Hist., vol. i., p. 178, fol. edit).
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 12:51 wrote:Plutarch assures us, De Iside et Osiride, that in several cities of Egypt they were accustomed to sacrifice human beings to Typhon, which they burned alive upon a high altar; and at the close of the sacrifice the priests gathered the ashes of these victims, and scattered them in the air:

I tend to think that Joseph Smith assumed that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice along with their idolatry. He also made the assumption that a black person is a slave just because they're black. He made Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 into a slave by chopping off his powerful snout and assuming the appearance of an African man figure would turn him into a slave when he knew damn well he was more than that. Smith really pulled a fast one in doing that. But, I busted him on that and more shall be revealed in time.

Post Reply