Haley Wilson Lemmon and the Adam Clarke Commentary
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:01 am
So in my younger days, while I was getting my history degree, I also minored in religious studies. I have a great love for scriptural/textual criticism, and I thoroughly enjoyed my classes on these subjects, even if they challenged my Mormon views on the Bible (at the time). So it was with great anticipation that I wanted to hear/read more about Lemmon's and Wayment's paper about the JST Translation and Adam Clarke's Commentary - and so I was excited that she appeared on Mormon Stories, and it went up last night:
https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/h ... on-lemmon/
I have since learned that she appeared on Bill Reel's podcast a couple of years ago, so I'll have to listen to that one as well. But for anyone else interested in textual criticism and the JST/Clarke's commentary furor, this is a must listen. The only thing I knew about Clarke's commentary before this is that he appeared a great deal in Talmage's Jesus the Christ, and that's about it. But I'm shocked that it took until a few years ago to figure out how much Joseph "borrowed" from Clarke in the JST. And I'm very glad that John spent over an hour on the actual paper that Haley and Thomas Wayment wrote, rather than other things in the interview. I thoroughly enjoyed this episode.
My one immediate takeaway from Haley's interview, that I already kind of knew, is that Joseph didn't really have an original thought, theological or otherwise, but liberally borrowed from the milieu he was surrounded in. And I'm also really glad that Haley is very nuanced about that particular process. I think she explains well that 19th century people did not have the same scruples as to plagiarism that we moderns have, so she's convinced it wasn't as malicious as critics would have it explained. By the same token, though, I think she's clear that the church and its members need to re-evaluate if Joseph's theology is truly unique and "from God," or if he's like every other religious leader in the early 19th century. That they simply just built on what came before, like a good Protestant, rather than a "restorationist." This is very critical to the truth claims of Mormonism; and why, I'm starting to be convinced, why the re-brand of the church is so significant.
https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/h ... on-lemmon/
I have since learned that she appeared on Bill Reel's podcast a couple of years ago, so I'll have to listen to that one as well. But for anyone else interested in textual criticism and the JST/Clarke's commentary furor, this is a must listen. The only thing I knew about Clarke's commentary before this is that he appeared a great deal in Talmage's Jesus the Christ, and that's about it. But I'm shocked that it took until a few years ago to figure out how much Joseph "borrowed" from Clarke in the JST. And I'm very glad that John spent over an hour on the actual paper that Haley and Thomas Wayment wrote, rather than other things in the interview. I thoroughly enjoyed this episode.
My one immediate takeaway from Haley's interview, that I already kind of knew, is that Joseph didn't really have an original thought, theological or otherwise, but liberally borrowed from the milieu he was surrounded in. And I'm also really glad that Haley is very nuanced about that particular process. I think she explains well that 19th century people did not have the same scruples as to plagiarism that we moderns have, so she's convinced it wasn't as malicious as critics would have it explained. By the same token, though, I think she's clear that the church and its members need to re-evaluate if Joseph's theology is truly unique and "from God," or if he's like every other religious leader in the early 19th century. That they simply just built on what came before, like a good Protestant, rather than a "restorationist." This is very critical to the truth claims of Mormonism; and why, I'm starting to be convinced, why the re-brand of the church is so significant.