About a year ago, BYU published an article showing the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible appears to rely on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary. I first was made aware of this in a good podcast interview by Laura Hales at LDS Perspectives. Someone in the Progmo world stumbled upon this recently, as I’ve seen it shared a lot the last couple days.
Interesting quote from the article titled A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation by Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment:
In conducting new research into the origins of (Joseph) Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text.
As some of my readers have noticed, I’m a little obsessed with Book of Mormon origin analysis and discussions. It’s my opinion that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work. I think it’s best understood as non-historical or as an extended metaphor. As a Latter-day Saint, I accept it as scripture and read it and study it to be inspired and learn the word of God. But the anachronisms and evidence as I understand it lead me to believe it should be treated the same way we view other inspired but non-historical scripture such as the New Testament parables, Job or Noah’s flood.
I believe there are textual clues inside the Book of Mormon that with more analysis will lead us to be a better understanding of how it came together. Yes, it was translated by the power of God. But we still don’t know exactly what Joseph meant by the word translation. This research by Wilson and Wayment is a huge discovery in helping us understand what the JST translation process was like. I am wondering if a similar application towards the Book of Mormon would possibly bear interesting results.
This is the path I would take if I undertook such a study. I would analyze the Book of Mormon “Sermon” portions. I divide the BOM into the “N voice” or narrative voice, which is the third person narrative of Mormon. And the “S Voice” or sermon voice, which is the first person voice of King Benjamin, Alma, Abinadi, Amulek, etc.
Inside the S voice, I would look for snippets from the KJV, and then I would look in the Bible Commentary of those KJV verses to see the discussion. For example, 2 Nephi 9 would show hits in phrasing with 1 Corinthians 15. Then I would look in the Bible Commentary for 1 Cor 15 to see if I could find hits for BOM phrases like “behooveth great Creator” or “came by reason of transgression” for example.
| 2 Nephi 9 | 1 Corinthians 15 |
| 5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him. | 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. |
| 6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord. | 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. |
| 7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. | 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. |
Or I would find where two or three unique KJV phrases are combined in a BOM verse like Mormon 9:2
2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?
Which combines
Isaiah 34: 4
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
and 2 Peter 3: 10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
You might find a Bible commentary or other important religious work or sermon that references these together.
I would look at the large blocks of Isaiah, Malachi, and Matthew and the differences between the BOM and the 1769 KJV and search the Bible Commentary for clues on those differences.
I would look at the unique sounding 19th century phrases in the BOM to see concentrated usage like:
song of redeeming love
can in nowise inherit
wicked and perverse generation
white through the blood
racked with eternal torment
state of endless misery
the flesh becoming subject
infinite and eternal sacrifice
mercy claimeth the penitent
eternal plan of redemption
mankind must unavoidably perish
plan of redemption
chains of hell
demands of justice
reason to rejoice
plain and precious
temporal death
spiritual death
fallen state
high priesthood
endless torment
infinite atonement
mortal body
I would look at some of the specific matches like Alma 40’s match with Of the State of The Dead, And of Those that are to Rise: In Two Volums, Volume 1, Thomas Burnet, Matthias Earbery 1728. Maybe the particular Bible Commentary also included this unique text.
Alma 40: 6,7
6 Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection.
7 And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection?
I would look at the Bible Commentary for references to Hebrews 2: 17,18 to see if there was expanded text that was familiar at all to Alma 7:11-13. Mosiah 15 and 16 is Abinadi’s exegesis on Isaiah 53, the suffering servant. I would look at bible commentaries to see what the discussion of Isaiah 53 was and if it sounded anything like Mos 15 and 16.
The Book of Mormon is brilliant in its simple, powerful, and inspiring exegesis of sometimes vague, short, or hard to understand Bible passages. I don’t think it’s outside the definition of translation to think Joseph could consult existing Bible commentaries of his day to help him translate the Book of Mormon text. That’s essentially what the restoration was. Taking the very best and most inspired of various faith traditions.
Wheat & Tares 
As a preface, I’ve already been open that my position is the Book of Mormon is based on a historical ancient record, but I recognize there are some modern-looking elements in there worth discussing and exploring.
I talked about the Adam Clarke/JST angle in my “Beyond the CES Letter” post a couple weeks ago, so I’m familiar with it. In the LDS perspectives podcast, Professor Wayment explains that Joseph received a set of Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary from his brother-in-law, which is why he’s comfortable stating Joseph likely consulted it. My impression was that Wayment believes Joseph received the set sometime after he finished the JST Genesis translation, or at least nothing in that section shows any influence from Clarke. That’d be after the BofM translation.
Is it possible that Joseph could’ve seen Clarke’s commentary before writing the Book of Mormon? Yes. The undergraduate article mentions the volumes were available in the 1820s and 1830s. However, the undergraduate article pushes the idea that Rigdon likely encouraged Joseph to use Clarke, which would put it after the BofM translation (Footnote 3 mentions one hitch in that theory relating to one phrase in the BofM). In the podcast several months after the article, Wayment mentions there is historical evidence that Joseph’s brother-in-law presented him with a copy of Clarke’s commentary. It’s not clear on the timing, though.
Something from the undergraduate article that is interesting is footnote 2:
“In doing the research for this paper, we also encountered numerous theological parallels to Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary (1802). The parallels to Buck are inherently different from those identified in Clarke. They are broadly theological and while they demonstrate conceptual parallels, they lack the exactness of the Clarke parallels.”
I’d suspect, if you’re looking for parallels in sermons, it’d be worth including that 1802 Buck’s commentary in the analysis. Because it’s older, there’s a better chance someone could find evidence Joseph was exposed to it.
As far as BofM plagiarism accusations related to biblical stuff, another interesting angle is the Walker’s Dictionary which included a list of biblical and apocryphal names. The only reason I consider it worth mentioning is people have actually traced a connection with Joseph Smith, as it was used in schools Joseph was known to have attended as an adult prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon. But it’s not a commentary, per se, and it wouldn’t have the unique phrases you’re looking for.
Thanks for the addition Mary Ann.
It’s worth reading the LDS Perspectives interview with Thomas Wayment a few months back on this topic. They found evidence that the Clarke commentary Joseph had was given to him by Emma’s brother. It appears some time before he switched from working on Genesis to working on the New Testament. So likely around March of 1831.
You know…I’m sure it’s only because I’m extremely tired and worn out (after having our Autistic daughter in the hospital the last four days – with a very serious infection) but, sometimes I find the LDS Church, The Book Mormon – and the question of its’ historicity – so doggone exhausting. Couldn’t Heavenly Father have just made things more clear and obvious; rather than us having to go on an endless search for the truth?!. Ha! I love “youse guys”.
Oh whoops. Ann said what I did. My apologies — had to step out for a book and didn’t refresh the browser to see if new comments had been made.
I think the Book of Mormon historical but that doesn’t mean broadly Arminian theological language isn’t in it nor quotations and paraphrases from the KJV and even other texts like Hamlet (Mosiah 3:25) to convey an idea that was on the plates. That is I think the translation is a loose and somewhat idea based translation and not tight in terms of a close relationship to the underlying Hebrew or other languages. (Since we don’t know much about the nature of the text and how it was encoded we don’t know how heavily “compressed” it was perhaps expressing phrases or ideas rather than words at it’s token level) I think the best proponent of this loose translation is Brant Gardner who’s written a rather good book on it.
If the text is loose, we’d expect to find the exact kind of phrases (say 3-6 words) quoted or paraphrased from the KJV and other texts in Joseph’s environment.
Thanks for your post.
If the Book of Mormon is a 19th inspired creation as you believe, how do you explain:
1. The presence gold plates while Joseph translated, seen by many witnesses.
2. The appearance of the angel Moroni, one of the authors of the BofM.
3. Joseph Smith’s detailed accounts of obtaining, protecting, and translating the gold plates
4. The 12th witnesses Mary Whitmer. She said an old man showed her the plates, probably Moroni.
Why would the prophet create an unnecessary story when all he had to was relate the story as you believe it happened? In other words, why would he lie?
Hi Jared:
Well my friend, you’ve just touched upon another one of those conundrums (or a paradox – if you will) that I’ve been wrestling with; ever since many of the details regarding Joseph’s use of the Seerstone – through which the B of M narrative was given – became public. With the Seerstone in hand, why were the plates needed – ergo if the plates weren’t needed, then why would they need to be hid. Yup, it’s a real “head-banger”.
Regards.
So if you are correct and the Book of Mormon is not historical but a 19th inspired fiction created by Joseph Smith, was Joseph’s lying when he claimed to have met an angel named Moroni 3 times in one evening and also at the Hill?
Jared, i don’t have perfect answer for that. But that evidence doesn’t outweigh for me the evidence in my mind for a non-historicity. I think some sort of pious fraud could have been possible. But I also don’t say that with the same meaning some others would. Nearly every religion and every book of scripture, including Old and New Testament have some sort of pious fraud incorporated.
Lefthandloafer-
I’m not troubled that Joseph used a device (stone) to translate. The plates were real and there. He needed something to translate by the power of God other than the plates.
If we knew what we know now when we were first introduced to church history, it wouldn’t be a problem. The problem lies in the changes. That brings up questions that are troubling for many.
churchistrue-
Thanks for your explanation.
On the Bible translation — that is undoubtedly why he was clear that it was unfinished and not for release until edited more …. 😉
May well have been what triggered his belief it was necessary, and why sections of his revised Bible did not agree with sections of the Book of Mormon for the same text.
Lefthandloafer — so sorry to hear of your problems with your daughter’s health.
Using a modern commentary would be unheard of by a true prophet as they claimed “thus is saying the Lord.”If we say Joseph used another modern work like Adam Clarke ‘s commentary to “translate” both the old and new testaments or revise them or whatever meaning you wish to give the process then we can believe he used another non inspired work like the Spalding Ms. ( The Spalding Enigma:Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? ) When does it end? What is very interesting and one needs to fully research Joseph’s team mate theologian Sidney Rigdon very closely working with Smith on the JST in 1831 in New York.He was the one who no doubt influenced young Joseph in using the Clarke work. The BoM as well as the JST when Rigdon was by his side have removed “ without a cause “ from Matt. 5 :22 . Rigdon supposedly did not know or consort with Joseph until the terminus of Dec.1830.Yet in the BoM 1829 in quoting this verse there is non” without a cause” either. There are other examples.
No wonder after years of reflection witness David Whitmer in his book said that Sidney Rigdon influenced Joseph on almost every doctrine and theological views Joseph taught. That’s one of the reasons he left the church.
I’m surprised at the negative reviews of Jared’s posts. Adam Clarke’s contribution would be truly disturbing, had God not provided eleven independent, verifiable witnesses to the plates, including three upstanding men in the community who saw the plates, the angel, and heard the voice of God. That would be a challenging conspiracy indeed, had they not signed their names to a fantastic story, never to deny it, even at death’s doors as they prepared to meet God and be judged of their works one day. Add to that the unique personal verification from God to individuals via the Holy Ghost, and you have a less problematic conundrum, in my view. Having lived it’s teachings, I believe it’s true.
Thank you for your examination. I understand BYU study found 200-300 exact “copies” /pious fraud from Clark’s work into the JST. Do you know where to find that study? Absolutely agree it’s not historically valid. As for the unique personal verification as Jim mentioned, sorry friends, you can find that same exact verification (emotional /psychological experience) by people of literally all other faiths online of their “testimonies” that their religion and/or religious texts are “true”. You may say “it’s counterfeit Holy Ghost”, but think long and hard about these types of things that allow us to have a more generous and open view of the world. LDS church is less than one half of one percent of the worlds population. So ALL another people’s experience with the Holy Ghost is Satan?
If it’s a non-historical book–or an extended metaphor–why the numerous declarations that it was written to the Lamanites for the expressed purpose of showing “unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever?” Not to mention the numerous internal declarations that it was written to Lamanites.
It seems Joseph Smith believed it was an historical work, going so far as to send the first missionaries to the Iroquois confederacy. Seems like an awful lot of work to go through if they didn’t exist.