Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon on the Influence of Adam Clarke's Commentary on the JST

In Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Commentary on Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation” in Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee and Brian Hauglid, eds., Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2020), pp. 262-84, the authors provide evidence of Joseph Smith using Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary. Examples include:

 

Dependence on Clarke’s Scholarly Arguments:

 

Some of Smith’s changes that are grammatically nuanced and imply a careful reading of the English text may rely on Clarke’s commentary. To illustrate, in Luke 23:32, the KJV phraseology could be misinterpreted to mean that Jesus was a malefactor like the men who were crucified on either side of him: “And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.” Clarke’s commentary points this out, noting: “It should certainly be translated two others [plural], 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 (Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary: Matthew—Revelation, 496). Apparently in deference to Clarke, Smith rendered the problematic line in precisely the same way, “there were also two other<s>, malefactors” . . . Occasionally, Smith was also willing to follow Clarke’s commentary on even the smallest of matters. In Romans 11:2, in which Elias “maketh intercession to God against Israel,” Smith changed the word “intercession” to “complaint”—a suggestion that was made by Clarke (Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary: Matthew—Revelation, 126). And in Smith’s translation, the word “Christ” inexplicably appears in 1 John 3:16 in the place of “God”: “Hereby perceive we the love of God <Christ>.” The change is intended to clarify the identity of “God” as referring to either God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ. Clarke’s commentary rightly noted that the verse was itself interpreting John 3:16 and thus refers to the Son. Clarke also pointed out that some Arabic and Syriac texts contain the clarification that God in 1 John 3:16 is really Christ (Ibid., 916).

 

There were other small changes. In Jude 1:11 (“they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core”), Smith changed the past tense “perished” to a future tense “shall perish”-a change that is directly noted by Clarke (Ibid., 953). And in a similar vein, Clarke reasoned that in Matthew 20:21, the passage about the exalted role of the sons of Zebedee, the possessive pronoun “thy” has been mistakenly rendered by a “the” in the KJV translation: “The one on thy right hand and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” Clarke restated the passage: “One on the right hand, and the other on (Thy) left,” explaining that he had “added the pronoun in the latter clause on the authority of almost ever MS. and version of repute.” Smith, apparently reflecting Clarke, changed the verse in the same manner: “The one on thy right hand and the other on the <thy> left, in thy kingdom” (Ibid., 147). Smith seems to have become increasingly confident in Clarke’s linguistic abilities. This appears obvious in Smith’s revision as the later changes in the New Testament tend to engage Clarkes emendations that were based on manuscript evidence and grammatical notes. (pp. 269, 271-72)

 

Borrowings from Clarke that has theological consequences

 

Smith’s revision of Romans 14:23 may have influenced later Mormon thought regarding the doctrine of the judgment of the wicked. The KJV text reads, “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Smith revised the first part of this to “And he that doubteth is damned <condemned>.” Clarke’s commentary argues for this same minor change of wording: “This verse is a necessary part of the preceding, and should be read thus: But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith” (Ibid., 154 [emphasis in original]). Smith's revision seems to indicate his acceptance of the quality of Clarke’s scholarship even in instances that might entail doctrinal implications . . . Some of the revisions made by Smith appear to have larger theological implications, such as the one that occurs at Matthew 22:14—“For many are called, but few are chosen.” In that verse, Smith added an explanatory comment to the end of the verse so that the concept of being chosen by God would be denoted by the possession of a “wedding garments”: “For many are called but few are Chosen <, wherefore all do not have on the wedding garments>.” Clarke’s commentary, after addressing the textual quality of the verse, interprets it as follows: “Many are called by the preaching of the Gospel into the outward communion of the Church of Christ, but few, comparatively, are chosen to dwell with God in glory, because they do not come to the master of the feast for a marriage garment—for that holiness without which none can see the Lord.” It seems implausible that both Clarke and Smith would independently interpret verse 14 using the word “garment,” associate this garment with a wedding costume, and imply that possession of a marriage garment signified a person being permitted into a wedding east that symbolized divine communion. (pp. 274-75, 276)

 

The authors provide the following as a conclusion to their work:

 

In analysing Smith’s larger project of revising the Bible, Philip L. Barlow has argued that Smith’s revisions can be sorted into five different categories (Barlow, “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible,” 53-57) . . . :

 

1. Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source;

2. Theological corrections;

3. Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text;

4. Harmonizations, particularly among the Synoptic gospels (Barlow utilizes the example of the revision of Matthew 27:3-8, which narrates the death of Judas Iscariot and seems at variance with the rendition of Judas’s death in Acts 1:18-19. Smith combined the two accounts and eliminated the discrepancy. See Barlow, “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible,” 56); and

5. Grammatical changes, including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.

 

Given the evidence presented in this chapter, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s first category belongs overwhelmingly to Smith’s early prophetic expansions of Genesis and that his third, fourth, and fifth categories appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary. In fact, it is arguable that Clarke is the primary source Smith dew upon in making these types of revisions. However, while Smith apparently turned to Clarke’s commentary to provide grammatical, linguistic, and historical assistance as he carried out his work, the commentary was not a source for the content in Smith’s significant expansions. Therefore, it can be argued that it was less a theological source than a practical resource. Smith somehow became familiar with the commentary—perhaps at the urging of Sidney Rigdon—and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the remainder of the translation process. (pp. 283-84)

 

An online version of Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible can be found here.