Jaredite Steel?

[Bill Hamblin]

It does, however, say, "he did molten out of the hill." I don't know what that might mean, other than "smelting."

I note also that the brother of Jared "did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones," for whatever that's worth in interpreting the word "molten."

Edit: Also, regarding Nephi making tools with which to make a ship, it says, "And it came to pass that I did make tools of the ore which I did molten out of the rock." I note a couple interesting things here: First, it's not the "ore" that he "molten[ed]", it was the rock. "Molten[ing]" the rock resulted in "ore." I have no idea what to make of that. Second, Nephi describes what seems to be a bellows forge, which I understand won't get hot enough to melt iron. One can, however, use such a forge to refine ore into sponge iron, which can then be worked into tools.

That would appear to suggest that perhaps "molten" doesn't involve producing actual liquid metal.

You are assuming here that Nephi is working iron. It could just as easily be copper. As noted, steel in the KJV always refers to copper, not iron. There are various ways of using heat to work metal that don't involve liquifying and casting.

[SolarPowered]

You are assuming here that Nephi is working iron. It could just as easily be copper. As noted, steel in the KJV always refers to copper, not iron. There are various ways of using heat to work metal that don't involve liquifying and casting.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall Nephi saying what the material was that he made tools from, other than "ore."

The folks from BYU who explored a candidate site for Bountiful found iron ore there (hematite, as I recall), and as I remember the account, returned to BYU with 50 pounds of the ore and proceeded to make tools from it using a primitive forge. (I suspect you may personally know these people, and probably know a lot more about this experiment than I do.)

That doesn't prove that Nephi was using iron, but it is suggestive. (Although, I also have a vague recollection that they mentioned finding copper ore there as well. If that is the case, then their explorations don't really tell us much about what Nephi might have been using.)

In any case, the question I raised is, what does the word "molten" mean? I don't know of any reasonable interpretation of the English word that doesn't involve something assuming a liquid state.

[Warship]

John W

I've consistently said there was metalworking, just not metallurgy or smelting, which seems to be what is described in the Book of Mormon

.

Hmmm..2100 bc smelting in Peru...forgotten so quickly. One more time for all those who did not catch it ....

Smelting was occuring in the Americas during the time of the Jaredites. See my earlier post on this thread, #187.

Hopefully John will quit repeating this false mantra.

[SolarPowered]

.

Hmmm..2100 bc smelting in Peru...forgotten so quickly. One more time for all those who did not catch it ....

Smelting was occuring in the Americas during the time of the Jaredites. See my earlier post on this thread, #187.

Hopefully John will quit repeating this false mantra.

What John is talking about is smelting of steel, not of other metals. The argument is that, because iron melts at a much higher temperature, the smelting of other metals is not evidence of the smelting of steel. So smelting of silver and copper in ancient times doesn't tell us much the smelting of steel. This is what is seen in the Old World--widespread smelting of copper happened long before widespread smelting of iron.

[Bill Hamblin]

What John is talking about is smelting of steel, not of other metals. The argument is that, because iron melts at a much higher temperature, the smelting of other metals is not evidence of the smelting of steel. So smelting of silver and copper in ancient times doesn't tell us much the smelting of steel. This is what is seen in the Old World--widespread smelting of copper happened long before widespread smelting of iron.

Have we still not grasped the fact that "steel" in the KJV translation always refers to copper, or copper-based alloys?

[Warship]

Well then John needs to qualify his statements. I have seen him many times say there was no smelting in the Americas period...as he did in the statement I quoted.

Bill

Combining the smelting of copper in Peru in 2100 BC with the fact that smelted copper is steel in the bible I'm sure will have zero impact here.

[MormonMason]

It does, however, say, "he did molten out of the hill." I don't know what that might mean, other than "smelting."

I note also that the brother of Jared "did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones," for whatever that's worth in interpreting the word "molten."

Edit: Also, regarding Nephi making tools with which to make a ship, it says, "And it came to pass that I did make tools of the ore which I did molten out of the rock." I note a couple interesting things here: First, it's not the "ore" that he "molten[ed]", it was the rock. "Molten[ing]" the rock resulted in "ore." I have no idea what to make of that. Second, Nephi describes what seems to be a bellows forge, which I understand won't get hot enough to melt iron. One can, however, use such a forge to refine ore into sponge iron, which can then be worked into tools.

That would appear to suggest that perhaps "molten" doesn't involve producing actual liquid metal.

You would be exactly correct as the ancients did not smelt iron in the sense in which we think of it today. Iron was made into a bloom of molten metal but was not liquified as was the case with copper and bronze, which also were cast using molds during the same time period. What the ancients did was to free the iron from the rock but it did not go further than this. Hammering and repeated heating was used to remove impurities. Nowhere does the text of the Book of Mormon say that the swords were smelted. It only uses the term molten to describe what was done before the swords were made. Steel was not molten out of the hill. The passage says that "he did molten out of the hill" and then made the swords out of steel.

[SolarPowered]

Hopefully it's OK to reply here to what John sent me in a P.M. yesterday:

My reading of your pre-Jaredite smelting article suggested that the chemical content of the iron examples suggested it was a by-product of copper smelting, hence the high copper content.

Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

John, I don't see that in the reference. What I found there about the very early samples is just that they contained no nickel, and therefore are believed to have been smelted, rather than of meteoric origin.

There was a "suggestion" that iron artifacts from a later site were a byproduct of copper smelting. It was, however, nothing more that a mere "suggestion." And in any case that suggestion was not in the context of the very early (3000-5000 B.C.) examples of smelted iron.

[John Williams]

Have we still not grasped the fact that "steel" in the KJV translation always refers to copper, or copper-based alloys?

The problem is that the Book of Mormon distinguishes between steel and copper. Copper is mentioned only once in the OT (Ezra 8:27). In the Book of Mormon, copper is mentioned eight times, twice distinguished from steel: 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8. So, the use of "steel" in the KJV is not necessarily analogous to its use in the Book of Mormon. Presumably Joseph Smith knew what steel was; why would we expect him to call copper or copper alloys steel? It seems to me the only reason for supposing that Joseph followed the KJV in this regard is a simple need to explain what otherwise stands out as an anachronism.

And as for my "false mantra" (I kind of like the mental image of me sitting cross-legged on a mat, repeating a lie over and over), one bead of copper (which I am told is quite easy to "smelt" in a charcoal fire) in Peru bears only a tangential relationship to steel smelting among the Jaredites. But sure, I'll swallow my pride, beg forgiveness, and admit my error.

John, I don't see that in the reference. What I found there about the very early samples is just that they contained no nickel, and therefore are believed to have been smelted, rather than of meteoric origin.

There was a "suggestion" that iron artifacts from a later site were a byproduct of copper smelting. It was, however, nothing more that a mere "suggestion." And in any case that suggestion was not in the context of the very early (3000-5000 B.C.) examples of smelted iron.

Well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. By my count that's twice today.

[SolarPowered]

Have we still not grasped the fact that "steel" in the KJV translation always refers to copper, or copper-based alloys?

I have several points to make about that:

1. I found your FAIR writeup very interesting. I found it persuasive about the likelihood that the language of the Jaredites and 600 B.C. Hebrews did not distinguish between copper and steel, and thus we cannot assume that the material spoken of in Ether was carburized iron.

2. I don't agree that the KJV is always referring copper or alloys thereof when it speaks of "steel." One of my Gospel Doctrine teachers has seen many steel bows dating to the 600 B.C. time frame in a museum in France. Conversely, I'm not aware of anybody making copper bows.

3. The Book of Mormon is not the KJV, even though it often uses similar language. There are lists therein (which you quote in your FAIR paper) where the Book of Mormon lists metals that include iron, copper, brass, and steel. That suggests to me that they did in fact distinguish among those metals, and that Joseph accurately translated those.

4. The apparent fact that Nephi and Jarom had ways of denoting these various metals does not imply that the Jaredite language made these distinctions, so it may well be that the Jaredite plates were ambiguous about what metal was involved.

5. Regarding the post of mine that you are referring to, John W and I have been having a running conversation about the existence of smelted iron in the Old World at the time that the Jaredites left there, which leaves open the possibility that they could have brought the technology with them. Thus, whether "steel" in Ether actually refers to some copper alloy or to iron, it is not accurate to call that reference an "anachronism." The nature of this discussion was such the possibility or likelihood that "steel" actually was referring to copper wasn't terribly interesting to that particular discussion. Therefore, I didn't bring up that point in my post.

[Warship]

I'm not asking for an apology, just that you don't assert falsities.

If you had bothered to read the link I posted you would have known that 1 bead was hardly the sum of the evidence. The history of metallurgy in Peru is a long one, and there is evidence for a very sophisticated knowledge of metallurgy prior to 1000BC.

[John Williams]

I'm not asking for an apology, just that you don't assert falsities.

If you had bothered to read the link I posted you would have known that 1 bead was hardly the sum of the evidence. The history of metallurgy in Peru is a long one, and there is plenty of evidence for a very sophisticated knowledge of metallurgy prior to 1000BC.

Well, it's a long step from "he misread what I posted" to "he knowingly asserted falsehoods."

The bead is, by your article's account, the "earliest known" smelted copper in the Andean area. Yes, the history of metallurgy in Peru is long, but it begins with this bead. I'm not convinced that there is a connection between Peruvian copper smelting and Jaredite steel-making, especially if we accept the LGT, which most Mormon apologists accept. Do you see any connection between the Peruvian copper smelting and Jaredite steel smelting? If so, what evidence do you have for making that connection?

[Bill Hamblin]

The problem is that the Book of Mormon distinguishes between steel and copper. Copper is mentioned only once in the OT (Ezra 8:27). In the Book of Mormon, copper is mentioned eight times, twice distinguished from steel: 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8. So, the use of "steel" in the KJV is not necessarily analogous to its use in the Book of Mormon. Presumably Joseph Smith knew what steel was; why would we expect him to call copper or copper alloys steel? It seems to me the only reason for supposing that Joseph followed the KJV in this regard is a simple need to explain what otherwise stands out as an anachronism.

As I noted in my reference article,

Note-and this is important-there is no single English term that can accurately translate Hebrew nechushah/nechosheth; furthermore, the Hebrew term covers at least three distinct categories in modern English: copper, bronze (copper and tin alloy) and brass (copper and zinc alloy).

Copper in the BOM may well refer to native copper. Steel may well refer to "steeled" copper, that has somehow been "steeled" or strengthened. In other words steel may not refer to a metal, but to a way of working a metal so it is strengthened or "steeled."

[Bill Hamblin]

By the way, we know that Vikings introduced iron working in Vinland around 1000 AD. We also know iron working was known in French Canada in the 16th century. Are we therefore to assume that iron working was known in Canada from 1000 AD through the 16th century.

[John Williams]

As I noted in my reference article,

Copper in the BOM may well refer to native copper. Steel may well refer to "steeled" copper, that has somehow been "steeled" or strengthened.

That's as reasonable as any explanation I've heard, actually. Thanks. One remaining problem for me is that usually when Joseph ran into a word that he couldn't translate, he used what was presumably a Nephite/Jaredite term (sheum, neas, curelom, cumom, etc.). We have one example in a list of precious metals: ziff. If Joseph was referring to an unknown copper alloy, what reason do we have for assuming that he used the KJV term instead of something else?

By the way, we know that Vikings introduced iron working in Vinland around 1000 AD. We also know iron working was known in French Canada in the 16th century. Are we therefore to assume that iron working was known in Canada from 1000 AD through the 16th century.

The biggest difference is that the Nephites appear to have achieved political dominance in Mesoamerica (why else would the natives have made Nephites their kings?). Brant Gardner among others has suggested that this dominance came because of their introduction of superior technologies (such as smelting). The Vikings, on the other hand, never achieved any kind of political dominance in their areas of incursion. The situations don't seem analogous, at least not to me.

[MormonMason]

Nope, I'm not assuming smelting complexes. I am distinguishing between working of metals and smelting, the latter of which is what seems to be described in the Book of Mormon. Earlier in the thread, we cited some authors who distinguished between annealing, which is the process you describe, and smelting. Annealing doesn't sound much like "moltening" to me, but obviously you disagree. Fair enough.

I am not describing annealing, which involves the process of heating and slow cooling. When one does molten iron the way the ancients did it, one makes a bloom of molten metal that is not completely liquified and hammers it into shape. This bloom can be picked up, which is not the case with fully smelted metal, which is fully liquid and can be cast.

Here's my problem here. Some apologists seem to argue that valuable Old World technologies arrived in the New World but then faded out. Why? What on earth would motivate people to abandon useful technology, particularly if it was as simple as you and rcrocket are describing: simply heating up metal and pounding it?

One thing that would facilitate that is that ironworking and steelworking were difficult for the ancients. Obsidian-based weapons were long in use in Mesoamerica. These were efficient and deadly without the need for costly metalworking. Obsidian and wood were readily available and were cheap sources for blades and weapons. It is quite easy to see how this might happen in Mesoamerica. What I find interesting is that the swords in use in the Book of Mormon after the demise of mention of steel do not fit the patterns of metal swords but are more consistent with what would be true of such wooden swords lined with obsidian blades as were known in Mesoamerica.

For instance, the example of a Nephite soldier picking up a scalp from the ground and placing it on the tip of the sword to show the people the scalp. A metal sword would have been more useful to stab the scalp and pick it up that way. A wooden weapon lined with obsidan blades, on the other hand, would not be able to perform such an action, requiring someone to pick the scalp up and place it on the sword.

Another instance is where blood stains are described as staining the swords. Blood wipes off metal swords easily and will leave no marks or tarnishing if it is cleaned off at the end of a battle. But, with wooden swords, this would be impossible. Only by sanding them down and removing a layer of wood would it be possible to remove the blood stains.

It's been the apologists on this thread who have been attempting to connect Old World technology with Jaredit/Nephite technology. Not me.

I am not saying that you are trying to make the connection. Rather, you are doing the opposite, in my view. You seem to have been quoting books on Old World technology as some sort of objection to the use of related New World Technology. You are doing the same thing but in a "Bizarro World" sense. At least that is how I saw it.

Of course I agree that we don't know all the facts, hence my saying repeatedly that, based on what we know today, steel smelting appears to be an anachronism. But I'm certainly open to new information.

Yet, what I am trying to point out is that the ancients did not smelt steel. They melted ore, released the oxygen from the iron, and took a bloom of molten metal in their tongs and hammered out the iron. As they did so, they introduced carbon from the ashes in the fire itself or added them from another source while hammering. This produced a kind of steel. But, it was nothing like that we use today except chemically. It was steeled iron rather than smelted steel. So, since the ancients did not smelt steel and the Book of Mormon does not say that they smelted steel, only that they made swords out of steel or made steel, there is no anachronism because the processes are distinct, although related.

How do we know it wasn't widely used technology? I agree that no smelting took place in those days. But I'm not seeing anything like what is described in the Book of Mormon either.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we know this because the Book of Mormon does not mention nearly as much as it would have were the technlogy more widely used. If the technology were more widely used, there would have been more evidence for it.

First off, I'm not debunking "metalworking" among the Jaredites. Several posts in this thread discussed how early Mesoamericans worked natural outcroppings of metal and meteorite metal. Why wouldn't there be words for metal among the ancients? I'm not sure what your point is regarding the OP. Maybe you could clarify. I've consistently said there was metalworking, just not metallurgy or smelting, which seems to be what is described in the Book of Mormon.

While small amounts of silver are found in free state, most silver is derived from smelting ores containing it. Much silver was used in Mesoamerica as with gold. The amount of silver in Mesoamerica indicates to me smelting of silver ore was involved in production of silver objects, particularly those objects which were cast.

Metallurgy carries at least three definitions:

1. the technique or science of working or heating metals so as to give them certain desired shapes or properties.

2. the technique or science of making and compounding alloys.

3. the technique or science of separating metals from their ores.

Metalworking is defined as: the act or technique of making metal objects.

The processes actually overlap, particularly in the ancient world.

That's not what others have told me. The "steel" I'm told is a by-product of copper smelting, which is so easy that it can be done accidentally in a charcoal fire. Yes, your sources have people digging up ore (mostly for ochre), but not for smelting of metals.

While I am sure that the initial creation of steel was quite by accident in a charcoal fire, most occurrences would result in a steel that would be too brittle or too soft. A technology was developed around it and was kept secret amongst family members. It never developed into a full, widely spread, commercial trade for a reason. It was a pain in the rear-end to control and to make, and there was wealth to be earned for those who knew the skill. Seriously, making a perfect steel was as much art as it was science in ancient times. Nowadays, if one wants to make a sword by hand, he can obtain premade steel, each certified for grade and carbon content, in the form of bars which can be hammered out into shape later. Not so in ancient times. The slightest mistake would result in the wasting of a blade, which would then have to be remade.

I agree, and I appreciate the civility of your posts.

I try. I may not always succeed but I try.

[Bill Hamblin]

2. I don't agree that the KJV is always referring copper or alloys thereof when it speaks of "steel." One of my Gospel Doctrine teachers has seen many steel bows dating to the 600 B.C. time frame in a museum in France.

CFR. Please show me any example of the use of the word "steel" in the KJV that does not translate the Hebrew nechushah or cognate terms.

CFR. I am confident that your GD teacher was mistaken, or you misunderstood him. The steel bows he saw were perhaps from the sixteenth century AD, not the sixth century BC.

[Warship]

Well, it's a long step from "he misread what I posted" to "he knowingly asserted falsehoods."

The bead is, by your article's account, the "earliest known" smelted copper in the Andean area. Yes, the history of metallurgy in Peru is long, but it begins with this bead. I'm not convinced that there is a connection between Peruvian copper smelting and Jaredite steel-making, especially if we accept the LGT, which most Mormon apologists accept. Do you see any connection between the Peruvian copper smelting and Jaredite steel smelting? If so, what evidence do you have for making that connection?

I didn't say you "knew" it was false...just that it was false and I went to some length to prove it yet you continued. I am not trying to accuse you of lying or purposeful deceit.

I'm sure you can agree there is a major difference between these two statements...

A. There was no smelting in the Americas during the Jaredite time period.

B. There was smelting in the Americas during the Jaredite time period.

...I'm just asking you to keep it in mind before saying A again.

I don't have any evidence to relate this find directly to Jaredite steel smelting as I'm sure you know, I can just tell the large difference between A and B.

And while I'm convinced the text of the BOM clearly demonstrates an LGT, there has been no direct evidence linking the current popular LGT of Guatamala with the BOM eigther...so I am open to the possibility of a LGT elsewhere in the Americas.

[SolarPowered]

CFR. Please show me any example of the use of the word "steel" in the KJV that does not translate the Hebrew nechushah or cognate terms.

I admit ignorance of Hebrew here. I take it that "nechushah" cannot refer to steel, even though it is so translated in the KJV? I have read other discussions about "steel" in the Bible, and my impression was that the underlying word could refer to either copper-based or iron-based materials. If that is not the case, then my comment was wrong. That comment was based on my understanding that steel bows were in fact in use in O.T. times, from which I inferred that the supposed dual-use word referred to actual steel in the "steel bow" passages.

CFR. I am confident that your GD teacher was mistaken, or you misunderstood him. The steel bows he saw were perhaps from the sixteenth century AD, not the sixth century BC.

I have sent her an email asking for permission to send her email address to you. If she agrees, I will forward it to you in a PM.

Assuming that what she said checks out, I'd like to ask the same question in reverse: Do you know of any extant copper or copper-alloy bows from appropriate time periods? I would love to learn about them.

[SolarPowered]

I am not saying that you are trying to make the connection. Rather, you are doing the opposite, in my view. You seem to have been quoting books on Old World technology as some sort of objection to the use of related New World Technology. You are doing the same thing but in a "Bizarro World" sense. At least that is how I saw it.

I am the one who has been making that connection. The logic is this: There exist Old-World, smelted-iron artifacts that date from prior to the Jaredites departure from the Old World. The "steel" sword-making in Ether was done relatively soon after their arrival in the New World, by the great-grandson on Jared. Thus, there exists a very reasonable path by which known iron-smelting technology could have been available to Shule. (And, indeed, it makes far more sense that they brought the technology with them, than that they developed it in the space of a generation or two after arriving in the New World.) Thus, there is nothing anachronistic about an assertion that Shule smelted iron ore.

Of course, as Prof. Hamblin has pointed out, there are other explanations for that passage that don't involve the smelting of iron ore. However, even in the more stringent case of supposing that the passage does in fact refer to the smelting of iron ore, there is no basis on which to characterize it as "anachronistic."

[HiJolly]

Maybe not quite on topic, but has anyone mentioned yet the discovered scientific evidence of steel tools found in Akkadian arrowheads circa BC 800-600?

HiJolly

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris Smith writes:

Is this a common argument? It has always been my understanding that the book of Ether was translated from a Jaredite text. Is there some textual clue that suggests otherwise?

This is pretty evident from any normative reading of the text. Allow me to provide a few examples:

Perhaps one of the most explicit claims of what I suggested comes in Chapter 13:

And now I, Moroni, proceed to finish my record concerning the destruction of the people of whom I have been writing.

This isn't Ether's record. It is Moroni's record, that Moroni is writing. But, to provide some details, here is an explicit example from Ether chapter 3:

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

This isn't translation. It's not even a paraphrase. This is commentary.

Here are the first 5 verses of Chapter 4:

1 And the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord, and write the things which he had seen; and they were forbidden to come unto the children of men until after that he should be lifted up upon the cross; and for this cause did king Mosiah keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ should show himself unto his people.

2 And after Christ truly had showed himself unto his people he commanded that they should be made manifest.

3 And now, after that, they have all dwindled in unbelief; and there is anone save it be the Lamanites, and they have rejected the gospel of Christ; therefore I am commanded that I should bhide them up again in the earth.

4 Behold, I have written upon these plates the very things which the brother of Jared saw; and there never were greater things made manifest than those which were made manifest unto the brother of Jared.

5 Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.

This is all Moroni here. Again. The rest of Chapter 4 is a note written to the "gentiles" by Moroni. Chapter 5 is also, and the first verse is quite interesting from the perspective of talking about the text:

1 And now I, Moroni, have written the words which were commanded me, according to my memory; and I have told you the things which I have sealed up; therefore touch them not in order that ye may translate; for that thing is forbidden you, except by and by it shall be wisdom in God.

So here he seems to be speaking to Joseph Smith? And he refers to the idea that he wrote "according to [his] memory". Which means what? That he is giving us the Jaredite history according to his memory? Or that he is giving what was commanded as he remembers the commandment? It's hard to tell. But what isn't hard to tell is that none of Chapter 5 comes from a Jaredite record. So much so that Moroni has to remind us of this in the first verse of chapter 6:

And now I, Moroni, proceed to give the record of Jared and his brother.

So at this point, very little has come from the Jaredite record. And the obvious insertions of Moroni into this narrative occur everywhere. So, in chapter 8:

And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites.

Even on a less explicit level. When the wicked kings are criticized, why is the quintessential wicked king of the Jaredites, Riplakish, sound so much like King Noah, and why is his wickedness described in terms that leap out at us from the kingship codes of Deuteronomy? Even in telling the story of the Jaredites, Moroni has already buried their narrative into his own cultural awareness.

It is the one reason why it is difficult to talk about anachronisms in the Book of Ether where the text itself makes no pretensions of being a record older than Moroni who writes at the end of the Nephite civilization and not before its beginning.

So John W is wrong in his estimation of the text - and if he wants to suggest that there is material here that is verbatim what Ether wrote (or another Jaredite wrote) then he needs to provide some mechanism or process by which he can tell us what is Moroni's text and what is something earlier, since the text itself does not make such claims.

[Warship]

BenjaminMcGuire,

Interesting stuff, Iâ??ve seen similar arguments before but always wondered a couple of things.

What do you make of Moroni speaking of using translators 4:5 and also saying he takes his account from the 24 gold plates 1:2? And direct quotations like 15:34.

Do you think there is no block portion from the text of Ether, that it is an entire redaction?

For instance I would assume the genealogical list in 1:7-32 is directly copied.

[John Williams]

Of course I am. We know that the translator/redactor took editorial licenses liberally in the text (that is, the text of the Book of Ether is a text written by Moroni, not some translation literal or otherwise of an earlier text) which means that for you to make the suggestion that Moroni's comments demonstrate an anachronism in Moroni's sources you have to first demonstrate the necessity of understanding the source of Moroni's comments to be the earlier material which then is included in Moroni's text in such a way as to preclude any modification or interpretation on the part of Moroni.

Personally, I don't think you can do this.

Ben

Somehow I missed this post. I do agree that Ether is a recasting of the Jaredite record from Moroni's point of view. That would seem obvious, given the amount of editorial commentary in the text.

So John W is wrong in his estimation of the text - and if he wants to suggest that there is material here that is verbatim what Ether wrote (or another Jaredite wrote) then he needs to provide some mechanism or process by which he can tell us what is Moroni's text and what is something earlier, since the text itself does not make such claims.

When did I suggest that it was verbatim? If I did, I will certainly retract that statement, as that is not my estimation of the text. As I said to Chris Smith, Moroni himself tells us that he is at the very least giving an edited version of the Jaredite story.

I'm just curious as to why Moroni would have inserted apparent smelting and "steel" into his retelling of the story. I've just never heard anyone argue that before.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Warship writes:

BenjaminMcGuire,

Interesting stuff, Iâ??ve seen similar arguments before but always wondered a couple of things.

What do you make of Moroni speaking of using translators 4:5 and also saying he takes his account from the 24 gold plates 1:2? And direct quotations like 15:34.

Do you think there is no block portion from the text of Ether, that it is an entire redaction?

For instance I would assume the genealogical list in 1:7-32 is directly copied.

To answer your points, I am not sure that that Moroni is referring to a translation process which he went through himself using the interpreters in 4:5, but may well be referring to the need for the interpreters by Joseph Smith. Certainly chapter 5 seems to be directed to Joseph Smith personally.

For 1:2, I think that the language is ambiguous. Is Moroni working directly from the plates or is he working from Mosiah's translation which Mosiah made of the plates?

As far as the quotation in Ether 15:34, I think that it should be obvious that by its inclusion in the way that it occurs - "Now the last words which are written by Ether are these:" is an explicit statement that Moroni is including a piece of text written by Ether. And by this, we can identify it as a quotation, but this doesn't help us resolve the issue of finding quotation elsewhere other than we can say quite confidently that Moroni doesn't make such an identification anywhere else. Genealogical lists aren't necessarily copied but could easily be summaries (if they did exist in a source text, would you agree that this suggests that the source text was of a late date or a redacted work as well - that it couldn't have been written until after the last person in the listed genealogy existed? And so it doesn't help establish a dating for the source?). I wouldn't assume at all that the list in 1:7-32 is directly copied. But suppse that we made such an argument and concluded that 15:34 is directly copied. That doesn't help us much with the pieces of text in question, and the process by which we decided that those are original pieces of text don't help us determine whether the metalurgical references are accurate either.