Jump to content

Chalk up another mark for Mesoamerica


Anijen

Recommended Posts

As I was studying I came across an interesting fact. In Ether 1:6-32 is the account of Ether's genealogy. It starts with the most recent and ends with the oldest, for example it starts with;

6 And on this wise do I give the account. He that wrote this record was Ether, and he was a descendant of Coriantor.

7 Coriantor was the son of Moron.

It ends at verse 32. I vaguely remember a comment about this in Brant Gardner's Commentary so I went to it and found this;

"The genealogy finds his connection to the past. Interestingly, it more closely resembles the typical Mesoamerican model, which similarly focuses on the current individual and traces his ancestry back to the past. " Pg 164 volume six Analytical and Textual Commentary on the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph was the author it would seem to me that he would use the more common version of begat and to go from oldest to more recent, being that Joseph was very knowledgeable of the KJV of the Bible. I then went to some of my Mayan studies to verify this and sure enough every stela that showed a genealogical line followed the same pattern of from most recent to the oldest eg;

"on stela J 18 rabbit inscribed his own accession and that of his immediate predecessor, smoke-imix-God K..."Schele/Fridel Forrest of Kings pg 312

Which agrees with the pattern in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah we read how King Limhi asserts his authority by reciting his linage in this same pattern;

Mosiah 7:9

And he said unto them: Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people.

So it not only fits with the Mesoamerican model but goes against what Joseph would have probably did. It also matches the Mesoamerican pattern of the living king to the oldest and as a bonus matches identifying oneself as a leader (King) as Limhi and other Book of Mormon characters did.

Not quite a bulls eye but still interesting and another chalk mark for geography for Mesoamerica.

Link to comment

As I was studying I came across an interesting fact. In Ether 1:6-32 is the account of Ether's genealogy. It starts with the most recent and ends with the oldest, for example it starts with;

It ends at verse 32. I vaguely remember a comment about this in Brant Gardner's Commentary so I went to it and found this;

If Joseph was the author it would seem to me that he would use the more common version of begat and to go from oldest to more recent, being that Joseph was very knowledgeable of the KJV of the Bible. I then went to some of my Mayan studies to verify this and sure enough every stela that showed a genealogical line followed the same pattern of from most recent to the oldest eg;

Which agrees with the pattern in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah we read how King Limhi asserts his authority by reciting his linage in this same pattern;

So it not only fits with the Mesoamerican model but goes against what Joseph would have probably did. It also matches the Mesoamerican pattern of the living king to the oldest and as a bonus matches identifying oneself as a leader (King) as Limhi and other Book of Mormon characters did.

Not quite a bulls eye but still interesting and another chalk mark for geography for Mesoamerica.

This is interesting. This would indicate that there was some Jaredite (Olmec?) influence in the Mesoamerican arena. What is known of the peoples adjacent to Mesoamerica? Is ther anything known about how they traced their genealogy?

Glenn

Link to comment

This is interesting. This would indicate that there was some Jaredite (Olmec?) influence in the Mesoamerican arena. What is known of the peoples adjacent to Mesoamerica?

Indeed. When Lehi arrived, the Jaredites were still around, and it seems clear to me that over time there was more than a little interaction between the two groups of people, resulting in direct Jaredite influence in Nephite society. In my opinion, the Nephites (and Lamanites) both built their respective nations at least in part by absorbing stray groups of Jaredites that fled from the disintegration of the Jaredite nations.

Link to comment

Is Monday Mesoamerican parallel day? I though we looked for Hebraisms on Monday - or was that Tuesday? No, that can't be Tuesday, that's Egyptianism day. Now I'm confused...

How does this relate to passages like Numbers 27:1, Joshua 7:1 and 1 Samuel 1:1? Or Nehemia 11, a virtual "son of" fest? And who is being influenced by whom? Wasn't Moroni doing the writing in Ether 1 and didn't 18Rabbit live some 300 years after Moroni? How did the one influence the other? Do you have other examples of this influence? What is the relationship of the Mayan language with Reformed Egyptian anyway?

Maybe a Hugh Nibley quote is in order:

Parallelomania has recently been defined as the double process which "first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connections flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction." It isn't merely that one sees parallels everywhere, but especially that one instantly concludes that there can be only one possible explanation for such. From the beginning the Book of Mormon has enjoyed the full treatment from Parallelomaniacs.

Link to comment

Luke 3:23-38

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Link to comment

Why? Is the Mayan language related to Hebrew?

You're thinking of Aztecan.

Link to comment
You're thinking of Aztecan.

Not quite. I was merely wondering why frankenstein thought Hebrew was relevant to the OP about the Mayas (Mayans?).

Here's a website that actually is interesting re. Amerindian languages. The "Infrequently Asked Questions" page starts like this: "There is a lot of very good information about native peoples of America and their languages out there on the Internet. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of garbage. Some of it poses as scholarship". The website also says: "No linguist has ever shown a relationship between any Amerindian language family and a Semitic, Germanic or Celtic language". I guess there's always Reformed Egyption to fall back on... but that's Tuesdays only. Or was it Wednesdays?

Link to comment

Why? Is the Mayan language related to Hebrew?

your condescending tone aside, I was mistaken to a degree. The OP is about Ether rather than Nephi. However all languages borrow from each other or many languages share a "root". So it is quite possible that what ever the Mayans meant with "and then it happened" could mean the same thing as "and it came to pass". A usefull insight would be the Hebrew version of "and it came to pass"

Link to comment
The website also says: "No linguist has ever shown a relationship between any Amerindian language family and a Semitic, Germanic or Celtic language".

Garbage in/garbage out.

USU "Ignorant Stubbs-less purveyors of absolutes" 78

Link to comment
your condescending tone aside, I was mistaken to a degree. The OP is about Ether rather than Nephi. However all languages borrow from each other or many languages share a "root". So it is quite possible that what ever the Mayans meant with "and then it happened" could mean the same thing as "and it came to pass". A usefull insight would be the Hebrew version of "and it came to pass"

I'm wondering if there is a language which doesn't have a phrase which uses the past tense of the verb happen.

This is a non-starter as is the OP as Luke 3 demonstrates.

Link to comment

Could we keep to the topic please.

anijen have you seen "Cracking the Mayan Code"

Yes, although Micheal Coe is probably the most popular Mayanist he is not regarded as the best, not even close. I would place David and George Stuart works on a much higher level. I also own now almost 100 books and papers all on Mesoamerican, Mayan, Olmec stuff.

Ariarates

Is Monday Mesoamerican parallel day? I though we looked for Hebraisms on Monday - or was that Tuesday? No, that can't be Tuesday, that's Egyptianism day. Now I'm confused...

I'm not surprised
How does this relate to passages like Numbers 27:1, Joshua 7:1 and 1 Samuel 1:1? Or Nehemia 11, a virtual "son of" fest?
Your point being? If you just wanted to post a refutation please reread my post. I did not say the Bible always post the opposite but generally it post the linage from oldest to most recent.
And who is being influenced by whom? Wasn't Moroni doing the writing in Ether
Actually your point is a plus, a hit for the Book of Mormon When I used the verse in Ether it was Moroni who was writing (more likely abridging Ether's words), then many years later Joseph was translating etc that which was rewritten by Moroni which was taken from the 24 plates found by the people of Limhi translated by Mosiah then from Ether himself. Too make a long story short (too late) Ether is basically a 4th hand account, plenty of room for influence.
and didn't 18Rabbit live some 300 years after Moroni?
The point is the comparison of style of Mayan. Writing ones ancestry was the same as what Ether and Limhi used. The 300 years after Moroni is a strawman you are trying to set up because that same stela goes back much further than Waxak Lahun Ubah K'awil (18 rabbit) 18 rabbit was just the newest.
Do you have other examples of this influence?
Do you mean other examples of declaring authority by linage as king, other examples of starting from most recent to oldest in Mayan glyphs? To both questions, yes I do.
What is the relationship of the Mayan language with Reformed Egyptian anyway?
Derailing. This is a new topic and not part of the OP. If you are serious start a new thread and I will put in my 2 cents.
Maybe a Hugh Nibley quote is in order:

Parallelomania has recently been defined as the double process which "first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connections flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction." It isn't merely that one sees parallels everywhere, but especially that one instantly concludes that there can be only one possible explanation for such. From the beginning the Book of Mormon has enjoyed the full treatment from Parallelomaniacs.

Well since I never concluded that there is only one possibility this quote by Professor Nibley really doesn't apply. I was pointing out an interesting fact but thanks for taking it to another level I am complimented...

Thinking, I posted it as an example I am very well aware of the ancestry lines in the Bible. Again "the more common version" does not mean the only version.

Link to comment

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your main point seems to be that Ether's geneaology starting out with the most recent and working its way back to the oldest somehow confirms a Mesoamerican setting for the BoM (I interpret "another chalk mark" to mean some sort of evidence).

In support, you offer the following arguments:

1. Because Joseph knew his KJV, he probably not would have written it that way if he wrote the BoM himself. Not much of an argument really, doing one's genealogy that way is pretty common. Moreover, the KJV has both genealogical directions. A complete hypothetical with no basis in fact.

2. Some Mayan archeological artefact works from the most recent to the oldest.

3. King Limhi identifies himself as "Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff" - which is only how almost everybody is introduced in the OT (well, a lot of them anyway).

From these completely disparate observations, you conjure up a "Mesoamerican pattern".

Not quite a bullseye indeed. I'm reminded of a bull-related expletive that would probably get censored here, so I'll leave it to your imagination...

Link to comment

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Your main point seems to be that Ether's geneaology starting out with the most recent and working its way back to the oldest somehow confirms a Mesoamerican setting for the BoM (I interpret "another chalk mark" to mean some sort of evidence).

In support, you offer the following arguments:

1. Because Joseph knew his KJV, he probably not would have written it that way if he wrote the BoM himself. Not much of an argument really, doing one's genealogy that way is pretty common. Moreover, the KJV has both genealogical directions. A complete hypothetical with no basis in fact.

2. Some Mayan archeological artefact works from the most recent to the oldest.

3. King Limhi identifies himself as "Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff" - which is only how almost everybody is introduced in the OT (well, a lot of them anyway).

From these completely disparate observations, you conjure up a "Mesoamerican pattern".

Not quite a bullseye indeed. I'm reminded of a bull-related expletive that would probably get censored here, so I'll leave it to your imagination...

To each his own. Although I already said it wasn't a bulls eye it still is interesting. I would think if empirical evidence hit you in the head you would probably still deny it. Because I am so amateurish and since I am "conjuring" up "disparate observations" I will "imagine" it has some slight appeal to others more interested in the topic, but hey thanks for slamming my post and bursting my bubble I will think twice about posting my thoughts in the future. Not!

Anijen

Link to comment
I would think if empirical evidence hit you in the head you would probably still deny it.

Am I to infer that you consider your OP to be "empirical evidence"? Your hypothesis rests on an incorrect assumption about Joseph Smith's use of the Bible. Then you take a single fact out of the 3,000-year history of the Mayans and consider that a brownie point for a Mesoamerican setting for the BoM because you think it confirms your incorrect assumption.

You will find empirical evidence in posts 6 and 9 of this thread. Unfortunately, it contradicts your theory, so you prefer to sneer at me and thank the people who mindlessly compliment you on your deep insights. What a joke.

Link to comment

No, the fact that you can't understand what he actually said and was meaning gives question of your own judgment skills.

What he was stating was that even "if" such evidence presented itself you would deny it. (of course, there is some of such evidence out there, and I'm sure you deny it)

Nevertheless, his main point was that anti's like you mock these kinds of things, but there are thousands just like them and even many better ones that give "evidence" of the books authenticity. Yet, you either ignore or would deny every single one. Of course by itself it's not very compelling, especially when there is corollary evidence otherwise, but the fact that it does match, it's an important addition of building the case for the BOM. There are "valid" parallels when added as a whole, and there are bad parallels. Not all parallels are bad.

Link to comment

Nevertheless, his main point was that anti's like you mock these kinds of things, but there are thousands just like them and even many better ones that give "evidence" of the books authenticity. Yet, you either ignore or would deny every single one. Of course by itself it's not very compelling, especially when there is corollary evidence otherwise, but the fact that it does match, it's an important addition of building the case for the BOM. There are "valid" parallels when added as a whole, and there are bad parallels. Not all parallels are bad.

As you build your "valid" parallels and claim "evidence" exists, can you link me to one single artifact anywhere on the planet to prove one single story in the Book of Mormon is historically true? Thanks.

PS - Why not start in Illinois where Zelph was found? With such grand battles right here in the US, one would think the artifacts would be all over the place.

Link to comment

As you build your "valid" parallels and claim "evidence" exists, can you link me to one single artifact anywhere on the planet to prove one single story in the Book of Mormon is historically true? Thanks.

PS - Why not start in Illinois where Zelph was found? With such grand battles right here in the US, one would think the artifacts would be all over the place.

Here is the link you ask for:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...