Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jkwilliams

The State of the Evidence

How do you feel about evidence in favor of LDS truth-claims?  

77 members have voted

  1. 1. What best describes your assessment of evidence regarding LDS truth-claims

    • If I didn't have a testimony, I would not believe based on the evidence.
      18
    • The evidence leaves room for faith and belief, but on its own I don't find it compelling.
      33
    • On balance, the evidence is compelling in supporting LDS truth-claims.
      20
    • The evidence is overwhelming in favor of LDS truth-claims.
      6


Recommended Posts

In 2014, when the new BYU Religious Ed curriculum was announced, LDS blogger and independent scholar Julie M. Smith predicted that the "findings of the academic study of the Bible" might well precipitate "the next generation's faith crisis" and yesterday Ben Spackman reported on a recent "non-public conference at BYU" that addressed the topic of critical scholarship and faith. While Smith is confident that "Mormonism is entirely capable of withstanding a close study of the Bible," I am much less optimistic. A just-published academic introduction to critical OT scholarship, for example, notes the following:

  • "An increasing number of scholars now agree that the exodus narratives in Exodus-Deuteronomy represent a carefully crafted synthesis of diverse and unrelated traditions about Egypt, harmonized in the sixth or fifth century BCE (or later) to provide a foundation myth of 'outside' origins for the biblical Israel, in response to the experience of Judah's exile" (Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "The Historical Framework: Biblical and Scholarly Portrayals of the Past," in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016], 34).
     
  • "The Torah came into being in the first half of the Persian period (between 539 and 400 BCE), when different elite factions of Judah and Samaria decided to collect their different narrative and legal traditions in order to construct one great narrative that could be accepted by all groups and serve as the foundation document of a new religion based on regular reading of the Pentateuch" (Thomas Römer, "The Narrative Books in the Hebrew Bible," 124; cf. Diana V. Edelman, Philip R. Davies, Christophe Nihan, and Thomas Römer, Opening the Books of Moses [Sheffield: Equinox, 2012]).
     
  • "The idea of a multilayered edition of the Deuteronomistic History should be preferred to Noth's, whose assumption of an individual author writing on his own initiative is quite anachronistic. 'Private writing' outside the temple, palace,or scribal schools can hardly be assumed before Hellenistic times" (Römer, "Narrative Books," 126).
     
  • "Prophets in the ancient Near East did not, so far as we know, write books" (R. G. Kratz, "The Prophetic Literature," 142).
     
  • "In its current form, Gen. 2–3 hails from the postexilic period, though a preexilic etiology may well lie at its base (2:5–9a, 18–24; 3:20–21, 23). . . . [Gen. 2–3] significantly expands the original tale of a prosperous human creation and the distribution of duties, not to mention the overt declaration of creation's fundamental goodness (Gen. 1). A product of the postexilic period, this final version undertakes the connection of good and evil, an inquiry absent from the creation narrative of Gen. 1" (Hermann Spieckermann, "Creation: God and World," 278–279).

If even half of these statements are correct, the Book of Mormon is in trouble. As "RT" notes at Faith-Promoting Rumor, "the narrative about the escape of Lehi’s family from Jerusalem is patterned after the biblical Exodus . . . a full literary patterning after the biblical narrative, so that much of the core content, plotline, structure, and characterization appear to have had their inspiration in biblical sources." Obviously, a postexilic Torah and Exodus narrative is problematic. As is a postexilic Garden of Eden story.

That's in addition to the problems I enumerated below . . .

Quote

Jews in the first century CE had very different beliefs and practices than did Judahites in, say, the eighth-century BCE (and there was substantial diversity within each period too). Ideas about sin, atonement, the afterlife, national and individual "salvation," resurrection, the Messiah, the end of the world, etc., all underwent considerable change during the time between Isaiah and Christ, shaped by the experience of exile, Persian influences, the adoption of Aramaic, Hellenization, Roman rule, etc. What we find in Benjamin's speech is full-fledged post-70 CE Christianity.

Take the concept of sin. The Catholic Old Testament scholar, Gary Anderson, has noted that sin was originally conceived in the OT as a weight but by NT times came to be thought of primarily in terms of a debt. He writes: "In studying how debt came to replace the notion of weight with regard to sin . . . we see the fundamental changes in thinking that occurred during the era of Persian rule (538–333 BCE). Linguistically, these changes were tied to the rise in stature and influence of Aramaic. . . . One of the linguistic items that came on board was the construal of sin as a debt, a metaphor implied in the Aramaic tongue, but not in the Hebrew" (Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 7–8). Naturally, Benjamin follows the later usage: "whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins" (Mosiah 3:13; cf. 4:11, 20).

Regarding pre-exilic ideas about the afterlife, Susan Niditch has written: "In ancient Israel, those who die pass into an underworld across the river to take up a shadowy existence as a shade or a ghost (Job 33.18). Biblical authors describe the underworld, Sheol, 'the recesses of the Pit' (Isa. 14.15), as a gloomy, dark place (Job 10.22, 26), where all hierarchy and claims to former status are erased (Isa. 14.9–11). . . . The peace of the underworld is afforded only to those who have received proper burial. . . . God is a god of the living, and the dead cannot praise the Lord (Ps. 115.17)" (Susan Niditch, "Experiencing the Divine: Heavenly Visits, Earthly Encounters and the Land of the Dead," in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton [London: T&T Clark, 2010], 20–22). Benjamin, by contrast, anticipates a glorious afterlife: his "immortal spirit" will ascend to heaven and "join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God" (Mosiah 2:28) and he invites his audience to reflect on "the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness" (2:41). Conversely, a fearsome fate awaits the wicked: "[he that] dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment" (2:33); "his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment" (2:39; cf. 3:25–27).

On the subject of messianic expectation, Marinus de Jonge has written: "One should realize that in the OT the term 'anointed' is never used of a future savior/redeemer, and that in later Jewish writings of the period between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100 the term is used only infrequently in connection with agents of divine deliverance expected in the future" (Marinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 777). Benjamin, on the other hand, doesn't contemplate any "Christ" other than Jesus of Nazareth, who offers remission of sins and salvation through faith on his name. 

Benjamin also addresses post-biblical concepts, such as the Christian doctrine of the Fall (Mosiah 3:19), and concerns about the fate of the unevangelized (3:11) and infants that die without baptism (3:16, 18, 21). These are anachronisms not just at the level of language (and Benjamin employs nineteenth-century sermon rhetoric throughout his sermon) but at the level of content.

 

Edited by Nevo

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not as troubled about LDS prospects in light of Biblical Studies for a few reasons.  One comes from the light that went on when I read an article by Professor John McDade surveying life of Jesus Research.

Quote

Here, weighting is all and what should strike us about this helpful taxonomy is the selective and constructed character of the images of Jesus offered by historians, depending on their choice of emphasis, what counts as primary data, which heuristic models are used, etc. Telford speaks of a consensus today ‘that a combination of teacher, prophet, healer best captures historically his social identity or role’ (Telford, p.55).

 

 

Foreground data

 

 

·      If weight is given to the miracle tradition, then Jesus emerges as an ancient magician (Morton Smith) or as a Jewish charismatic healer and exorcist (Vermes).

·      If the weight is given to the sayings tradition, then a range of images of Jesus is adduced. 

·      If the wisdom sayings (proverbs, parables, aphorisms etc.) are given prominence, then Jesus emerges as a sage (Vermes, Flusser) or even an itinerant subversive sage (Borg, Robinson, Funk).

·      If an emphasis on the authenticity of the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings is retained, then Jesus emerges as an eschatological prophet (Meyer, Sanders, Charlesworth).

·      If his Kingdom saying are interpreted apocalyptically (following Schweitzer), and linked with the Son of Man sayings, then Jesus is an other-worldly figure, expecting cosmic catastrophe and relatively indifferent to social concerns.

·      If the Kingdom sayings are not interpreted apocalyptically, and the Son of Man sayings are viewed as secondary, then Jesus emerges as a this-worldly figure, a social prophet, with a social programme (Borg, Horsley, Hollenbach).

·      If the emphasis is placed on the opposition to him and his death at the hands of the Romans, then Jesus emerges as a para-Zealot revolutionary (Brandon) or the pacifist victim of oppression.

 

 

Background data

 

 

The choice of context in which to place Jesus affects the estimate given of him:

·      When emphasis is placed on the Palestinian Jewish context and within that on the Rabbinic tradition (although that did not flourish till after 70AD), then Jesus can be seen as the inspired Rabbi (Flusser, Chilton) or the Pharisee (Falk).

·      If the choice is made to place him in the context of apocalyptic Judaism, then he can be seen as the ‘humane apocalyptist’ (Charlesworth) or the ‘reasonable visionary’ (Sanders).

·      If his Galilean provenance is emphasised, then he becomes a charismatic holy man or hasid in the same tradition as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa (Vermes).

·      If Hellenistic influences in Galilee are emphasised, then he can be seen as a Cynic teacher (Mack, Crossan)

·      If it is judged that he conforms to no particular social type, he cannot be placed in one of these categories (Hengel)

 

 

The Jesus who is envisaged in these accounts is the pre-canonical Jesus, arrived at through certain judgements about the nature of the Gospel traditions (both canonical and extra-canonical -- the Gospel of Thomas is now a controversial card in the game), and set in the dynamics of the religious, social and economic life of Palestine.  There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood.  ‘Determines’ is not too strong a word, for one of the problems with this approach is that the grid of social and economic context is such a strong factor it can inhibit responsible handling of the actual textual evidence we have for Jesus.

If I remember that reconstruction of the Old or New Testaments are highly dependent on the school of thought, the methods and assumptions, the "group licensed way of seeing" involved, then I am less likely to panic when a particular author or school makes some authoritative, once and for all declaration about what was, what is, and what is or is not possible.  After all, this study includes a range of big name scholars all using a range of critical tools and evidence, and somehow, not only not arriving at a unified consensus, but also arriving in mutually contradictory positions.

And when it comes to specific problems:

Quote

On the subject of messianic expectation, Marinus de Jonge has written: "One should realize that in the OT the term 'anointed' is never used of a future savior/redeemer, and that in later Jewish writings of the period between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100 the term is used only infrequently in connection with agents of divine deliverance expected in the future" (Marinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” Anchor Bible Dictionary[New York: Doubleday, 1992], 777). Benjamin, on the other hand, doesn't contemplate any "Christ" other than Jesus of Nazareth, who offers remission of sins and salvation through faith on his name. 

In The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 134, Barker observes that "There is one extra letter in 1Q Isa 52.14 giving mshty 'I have anointed' rather than msht 'disfigured'" Which means that:

Quote

On the road to Emmaus, Jesus explained to the two disciples that it was necessary for the Anointed One to suffer and enter his glory (Luke 24.26); this must refer to the Qumran version of the fourth Servant Song [Isaiah 53], since there is no other passage in the Hebrew Scriptures which speaks of a suffering Anointed One. (Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 136) 

It makes a great deal of difference to our picture of the Messiah in the New Testament, if the name had formerly meant the anointed one who enjoyed the presence of God and had the status of an angel. In the pattern beginning to emerge, the vision of God was linked to knowledge, to the judgement, to ascent, and to angelic status, and all these were linked to the anointed one. All these also come through as a pattern in early Christian thought. The ascent visions were associated with the temple and its rituals. (Barker, Lost Prophet, 54)

And if you read her essays on the Fourth Servant Song and the Atonement, it turns out that Isaiah 53 is modeled on the anointed high priest and the Day of Atonement ritual as see by Isaiah of Jerusalem.

Poke around www.margaretbarker.com

She also notes the ideological engines behind much biblical scholarship, quoting Watson in her Reflections on Biblical Studies essay:

Quote

‘The lines of demarcation between systematic theology and Old and New Testament scholarship represent
more than mere division of labour; they are ideologically motivated. They represent a collective decision of biblical scholarship that biblical texts are to be construed as something other than Christian scripture.’ (p.6). 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

The gist is, I don't see the future for Book of Mormon or Biblical studies to be that bleak and unpromising, though I recognize that a lot of that depends on which paradigm one explores, which scholars one goes to for light.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Poke around www.margaretbarker.com

How come your response always seems to come down to "read this one maverick biblical scholar that validates my views and never mind all the rest"? I have read Barker. I regard her oddball theories in much the same way as I regard John Marco Allegro's theories in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross—learned and provocative but ultimately unconvincing.

Just out of curiosity, are there any biblical scholars you find worthwhile besides Margaret Barker? Are there any books or articles by scholars not named Margaret Barker or John McDade that you would recommend on any of the topics covered in my previous post?

You say you're not troubled by critical biblical scholarship but I get the sense that you haven't read much of it.

Edited by Nevo

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Nevo said:

How come your response always seems to come down to "read this one maverick biblical scholar that validates my views and never mind all the rest"? I have read Barker. I regard her oddball theories in much the same way as I regard John Marco Allegro's theories in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross—learned and provocative but ultimately unconvincing.

Just out of curiosity, are there any biblical scholars you find worthwhile besides Margaret Barker? Are there any books or articles by scholars not named Margaret Barker or John McDade that you would recommend on any of the topics covered in my previous post?

You say you're not troubled by critical biblical scholarship but I get the sense that you haven't read much of it.

I've read 17 books by Barker so far, and admit to find her work both exciting and persuasive.  I don't recall ever saying, "Never mind the rest."  I did, after all, close my "Prophets and Kings in Lehi's Jerusalem" essay by referring to such non-LDS luminaries as Richard Elliot Friedman, William Dever, Marvin Sweeny, and W. B. Barrick.   I've read dozens of non-LDS Biblical scholars over the years, though not hundreds, as my time, resources, aptitudes and interests are limited.  Some I like a lot, Robert Alter, Northrop Frye, and Dever and Barrick, for instance.  Some, like Friedman and Noel Freedman, Cyrus Gordon, and James Charlesworth, I find very useful, and some, I find useless.  

If I was all that concerned about conforming to popular or majority opinion, I wouldn't be LDS.  I have noticed that some LDS scholars who have read hundreds of non-LDS scholars, done serious language study and such, and and even some who have sprouted their own shiny Ph.D.s, such as David Larsen and Robert Boylan, are very fond of Barker.  Some other LDS scholars, are skeptical.  So it goes.  Some non-LDS scholars are skeptical, yet somehow she continues to publish, and gets people like the Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury and HAH Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, to pay attention.

And whether or not Barker is a maverick and/or an oddball, and whatever the heck I am, and whatever that means for plausibility, the fact is " "There is one extra letter in 1Q Isa 52.14 giving mshty 'I have anointed' rather than msht 'disfigured'" which means that one of Isaiah's Servant songs in at least one version predating the MT did refer to an anointed one, and Jesus seemed to refer to that version, and there is evidence that Isaiah 53 was modeled on the role of the anointed high Priest during the Day of Atonement rituals in the Jerusalem temple.  And Barker's book came out in 1996 one year after de Jonge.

Regarding beliefs about the afterlife, I'd recommend Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys.  One of the things I got from Zaleski is her sense that respect for NDE accounts in various cultures comes and goes, but that the kinds of things Benjamin teaches have an experiential basis in many cultures.  Whether ancient Israel had a more diverse set of thought on the topic than survives in the canon is a matter of conjecture, though, it seems to me that the kinds of details that show up in non-canonical writings, and the kinds of reports that come about in many different cultures ought to count towards what we can imagine is possible.

I've quoted James Charlesworth's 1978 essay on other ways to account for apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, as due to later editing, either by Mormon or Joseph Smith.  If you prefer, that approach is also available and compatible with faith.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/23/2016 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

I've read 17 books by Barker so far, and admit to find her work both exciting and persuasive.  I don't recall ever saying, "Never mind the rest."  I did, after all, close my "Prophets and Kings in Lehi's Jerusalem" essay by referring to such non-LDS luminaries as Richard Elliot Friedman, William Dever, Marvin Sweeny, and W. B. Barrick.   I've read dozens of non-LDS Biblical scholars over the years, though not hundreds, as my time, resources, aptitudes and interests are limited.  Some I like a lot, Robert Alter, Northrop Frye, and Dever and Barrick, for instance.  Some, like Friedman and Noel Freedman, Cyrus Gordon, and James Charlesworth, I find very useful, and some, I find useless.  

If I was all that concerned about conforming to popular or majority opinion, I wouldn't be LDS.  I have noticed that some LDS scholars who have read hundreds of non-LDS scholars, done serious language study and such, and and even some who have sprouted their own shiny Ph.D.s, such as David Larsen and Robert Boylan, are very fond of Barker.  Some other LDS scholars, are skeptical.  So it goes.  Some non-LDS scholars are skeptical, yet somehow she continues to publish, and gets people like the Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury and HAH Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, to pay attention.

And whether or not Barker is a maverick and/or an oddball, and whatever the heck I am, and whatever that means for plausibility, the fact is " "There is one extra letter in 1Q Isa 52.14 giving mshty 'I have anointed' rather than msht 'disfigured'" which means that one of Isaiah's Servant songs in at least one version predating the MT did refer to an anointed one, and Jesus seemed to refer to that version, and there is evidence that Isaiah 53 was modeled on the role of the anointed high Priest during the Day of Atonement rituals in the Jerusalem temple.  And Barker's book came out in 1996 one year after de Jonge.

Regarding beliefs about the afterlife, I'd recommend Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys.  One of the things I got from Zaleski is her sense that respect for NDE accounts in various cultures comes and goes, but that the kinds of things Benjamin teaches have an experiential basis in many cultures.  Whether ancient Israel had a more diverse set of thought on the topic than survives in the canon is a matter of conjecture, though, it seems to me that the kinds of details that show up in non-canonical writings, and the kinds of reports that come about in many different cultures ought to count towards what we can imagine is possible.

I've quoted James Charlesworth's 1978 essay on other ways to account for apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, as due to later editing, either by Mormon or Joseph Smith.  If you prefer, that approach is also available and compatible with faith.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

As perhaps the biggest oddball here with the weirdest conversion story, I agree completely.  Who likes Mormonism because it works for atheists who are anti-realists?

Each of us as "oddballs" actually represents an entire community of like-minded individuals in the overall culture.  Guys like Rorty could have been in that community- and also ours if the right words had been said to him, I think.  That may be a fantasy, but there ARE others like us- I know because I get messages from them thanking me for my point of view and saying that it has helped them.

I am out to convert as many oddballs who think as I do as I can!

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/20/2016 at 7:44 PM, Nevo said:

In 2014, when the new BYU Religious Ed curriculum was announced, LDS blogger and independent scholar Julie M. Smith predicted that the "findings of the academic study of the Bible" might well precipitate "the next generation's faith crisis" and yesterday Ben Spackman reported on a recent "non-public conference at BYU" that addressed the topic of critical scholarship and faith. While Smith is confident that "Mormonism is entirely capable of withstanding a close study of the Bible," I am much less optimistic. A just-published academic introduction to critical OT scholarship, for example, notes the following:

  • "An increasing number of scholars now agree that the exodus narratives in Exodus-Deuteronomy represent a carefully crafted synthesis of diverse and unrelated traditions about Egypt, harmonized in the sixth or fifth century BCE (or later) to provide a foundation myth of 'outside' origins for the biblical Israel, in response to the experience of Judah's exile" (Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "The Historical Framework: Biblical and Scholarly Portrayals of the Past," in The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. John Barton [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016], 34).
     
  • "The Torah came into being in the first half of the Persian period (between 539 and 400 BCE), when different elite factions of Judah and Samaria decided to collect their different narrative and legal traditions in order to construct one great narrative that could be accepted by all groups and serve as the foundation document of a new religion based on regular reading of the Pentateuch" (Thomas Römer, "The Narrative Books in the Hebrew Bible," 124; cf. Diana V. Edelman, Philip R. Davies, Christophe Nihan, and Thomas Römer, Opening the Books of Moses [Sheffield: Equinox, 2012]).
     
  • "The idea of a multilayered edition of the Deuteronomistic History should be preferred to Noth's, whose assumption of an individual author writing on his own initiative is quite anachronistic. 'Private writing' outside the temple, palace,or scribal schools can hardly be assumed before Hellenistic times" (Römer, "Narrative Books," 126).
     
  • "Prophets in the ancient Near East did not, so far as we know, write books" (R. G. Kratz, "The Prophetic Literature," 142).
     
  • "In its current form, Gen. 2–3 hails from the postexilic period, though a preexilic etiology may well lie at its base (2:5–9a, 18–24; 3:20–21, 23). . . . [Gen. 2–3] significantly expands the original tale of a prosperous human creation and the distribution of duties, not to mention the overt declaration of creation's fundamental goodness (Gen. 1). A product of the postexilic period, this final version undertakes the connection of good and evil, an inquiry absent from the creation narrative of Gen. 1" (Hermann Spieckermann, "Creation: God and World," 278–279).

If even half of these statements are correct, the Book of Mormon is in trouble. As "RT" notes at Faith-Promoting Rumor, "the narrative about the escape of Lehi’s family from Jerusalem is patterned after the biblical Exodus . . . a full literary patterning after the biblical narrative, so that much of the core content, plotline, structure, and characterization appear to have had their inspiration in biblical sources." Obviously, a postexilic Torah and Exodus narrative is problematic. As is a postexilic Garden of Eden story.

That's in addition to the problems I enumerated below . . .

 

None of this is even slightly relevant to the philosophical positions I hold.

I guess the oddballs are about to inherit Mormonism.  

It's evolution you know!  Out with the dinosaurs, up with mammals!   We are better adapted to the changing intellectual environment.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/9/2016 at 10:46 AM, Nevo said:

Then there's the interesting fact that Samuel L. Mitchill—yes, that Samuel L. Mitchill—"believed that both North and South America had been formerly populated fundamentally by two great races, not only the 'hyperborean or inhabitants of the north,' but also the 'australasian, or inhabitants of the south." The northern, more warlike, race (Mitchill believed they were Tartars) eventually destroyed the more civilized southern race, the "final battles of extermination [being] fought in upstate New York not too far south of Lake Ontario." New York Governor DeWitt Clinton was another prominent advocate of this "New York theory." This, as I'm sure you already know, is all spelled out in some detail in Richard Bennett's JBMORS article. Bennett concludes: "Thus a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon" (Richard E. Bennett, "'A Nation Now Extinct,' American Indian Origin Theories as of 1820: Samuel L. Mitchill, Martin Harris, and the New York Theory," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 [2011]: 42, 47).

Worth mentioning?

Wait, so Samuel Mitchell, that Samuel Mitchell, mentor to Rafinesque, believed that Native Americans were from Malaysia? In the 1820s, America's top scholar was claiming that Malaysians (believed by early Christians to be Israelites who departed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC) were fighting battles in upstate New York?

Yes, it is worth mentioning. Again and again and again 

Edited by Rajah Manchou

Share this post


Link to post

:zombie:

Zombie thread alert

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...