A View Of The Hebrews

[inquiringmind]

Here is a link to an Online Text of "A View of The Hebrews," by Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph Smith.)

http://olivercowdery...ts/ethn1823.htm

I don't see much similarity between this book and The Book of Mormon, and I'm not really interested in any theories linking the two.

What I am interested in is the the anthropological evidence of a Hebrew origin for native Americans that Mr. (Ethan) Smith offers throughout the book.

He makes a compelling case.

Has anyone ever done any fact checking?

How much his evidence has stood up to investigation?

Are any of the following statements true?

1. The American natives have one origin.

2. Their language appears to have been Hebrew.

3. They have had their imitation of the ark of the covenant in ancient Israel.

4. They have been in practice of circumcision.

5. They have acknowledged one and only one God.

6. Their variety of traditions, historical and religious, go to evince that they are the ten tribes of Israel.

7. The celebrated William Penn gives account of the natives of Pennsylvania, which go to corroborate the same point.

8. Their having a tribe, answering in various respects, to the tribe of Levi, sheds further light on this subject.

9. Several prophetic traits of character given to the Hebrews, do accurately apply to the aborigines of America.

10. The Indians being in tribes, with their heads and names of tribes, affords further light upon this subject.

11. Their having an imitation of ancient citiy of refuge, evinces their the truth of our subject.

12. Other Indian rites, and various other considerations, go to evince the fact, that this people are the ten tribes of Israel.

If Ethan Smith and his sources knew what they were talking about here, these points would support the book of Mormon.

Did they?

Edited November 8, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Kevin Christensen]

See John W. Welch, "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and "An Unparallel." FARMS Preliminary Reports, 1985. Welch points out that almost none of the things that Ethan Smith saw as Hebrew evidences appear in the Book of Mormon. And in the Book of Mormon, the Lost 10 Tribes are lost, and pointedly not an explanation of Native American origins.

Smith and his sources were weak, essentially 18th and 19th Century pop culture ideas. A lot has been learned since then. For instance, the "one origin" notion is wrong. Brian Stubbs has done research on Hebrew influence on Uto Aztecan, but none of the stuff in Ethan Smith holds up. Ethan Smith overgeneralizes way too much from way too little about subjects that are very complex.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

Not specific to your question, but might give you some ideas where to look: http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=9&num=1&id=247&q=View%20of%20the%20Hebrews%20hedges&search_result

[Brant Gardner]

Are any of the following statements true?

I'll answer to the best of my knowledge.

1. The American natives have one origin.

Not true. Of course, part of the question always requires a definition of how far back in history one should go, but there is evidence indicating multiple waves of population of the Americas.

2. Their language appears to have been Hebrew.

Not true, not then nor now. His evidence was anecdotal and doesn't pass any modern linguistic test (it rather depended upon his source not understanding the language and picking out things that sounded like things he recognized).

3. They have had their imitation of the ark of the covenant in ancient Israel.

This depends upon the assumption of corrupted parallels. It takes any kind of similarity and exalts it.

4. They have been in practice of circumcision.

This is certainly possible, though I do not know it to be true. The source of the information certainly could have seen the ceremony (or the result). However, I suspect that it is not correct. Reporting about that time period wasn't up to modern standards.

5. They have acknowledged one and only one God.

No.

6. Their variety of traditions, historical and religious, go to evince that they are the ten tribes of Israel.

No.

7. The celebrated William Penn gives account of the natives of Pennsylvania, which go to corroborate the same point.

Well, it could be true that Penn gave the account and the account said that, but I really doubt that it accurately represents a native viewpoint. Too much of our early information was distorted through the only historical lens the Westerners understood.

8. Their having a tribe, answering in various respects, to the tribe of Levi, sheds further light on this subject.

They certainly had a tribal organization, but that doesn't require any tie to Israel. It is simply one way of organizing people.

9. Several prophetic traits of character given to the Hebrews, do accurately apply to the aborigines of America.

Possible in that prophecy can be used in many ways, but none of these would demonstrate any descendance from Israel.

10. The Indians being in tribes, with their heads and names of tribes, affords further light upon this subject.

No, see above.

11. Their having an imitation of ancient citiy of refuge, evinces their the truth of our subject.

I don't know where this came from, and North American tribes aren't an area of study I have pursued. It is possible, but even if possible, it would likely be only for a particular tribe, not for all Native Americans. One of the things Smith (and his sources, usually Boudinot, if I remember) did is assume that anything one tribe did was reflective of all Native Americans. We know that is not so.

12. Other Indian rites, and various other considerations, go to evince the fact, that this people are the ten tribes of Israel.

No.

If Ethan Smith and his sources knew what they were talking about here, these points would support the book of Mormon.

They didn't know what they were talking about, and this information could only support the Book of Mormon if we could place it in the Northeast. While some do, there really isn't any good data that would allow that correlation. Mind you, I believe the Book of Mormon is historical, but not in that location and not for any of the reasons that Ethan Smith, Josiah Priest or Boudinot came up with.

[Mortal Man]

They didn't know what they were talking about, and this information could only support the Book of Mormon if we could place it in the Northeast. While some do, there really isn't any good data that would allow that correlation. Mind you, I believe the Book of Mormon is historical, but not in that location and not for any of the reasons that Ethan Smith, Josiah Priest or Boudinot came up with.

Of course, this puts you directly at odds with Joseph Smith.

From Priest's American Antiquities

If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them

in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on Indian Hill.

He ploughed [plowed] and conveyed away old chips and earth to some depth. After the work was done, walking over the place, he discovered, near where the earth had been dug the deepest, a black strap as it appeared, about six inches in length, and one and a half in breadth, and about the thickness of a leather trace to a harness.

He perceived it had at each end a loop of some hard substance, probably for the purpose of carrying it. He conveyed it to his house, and threw it into an old tool box. He afterwards found it thrown out of doors, and he again conveyed it to the box. After some time he thought he would examine it; but in attempting to cut it found it as hard as a bone, he succeeded, however in getting it open, and found it was formed of two pieces of thick raw hide, sewed and made water tight with the sinews of some animal; and in the fold was contained four folded pieces of parchment. They were of a dark yellow hue, and contained some kind of writing. The neighbors coming in to see the strange discovery, tore one of the pieces to atoms, in the true Hun and Vandal style. The other three pieces Mr. Merrick saved, and sent them to Cambridge,-where they where examined, and discovered to have been written with a pen in Hebrew, plain and legible.

The writing on the three remaining pieces of parchment, was quotation from the Old Testament. See Deut. vi. chap. from the 4th to the 9th verse, inclusive-also, xi. chap. 13-21, and Exodus, chap. 13-13-11,-16 inclusive, to which the reader can refer, if he has the curiosity to read this most interesting discovery. These passages as quoted above, were found in the strap of raw hide; which unquestionably had been written on the very pieces of parchment now in the possession of the Antiquarian Society, before Israel left the land of Syria, more than 2,500 years ago.

Dr. West of Stockbridge, relates that an old Indian informed him, that his fathers in this country had not long since, been in the possession of a book, which they had for a long time, carried with them, but having lost the knowledge of reading it, they buried it with an Indian chief-View of the Hebrews, Pg. 223.

It had been handed down from family to family, or from chief to chief as a most precious relic, if not as an amulet, charm, or talisman, for it is not to be supposed, that a distinct knowledge of what was contained in the strap could have long continued among them, in their wandering condition, amid woods and forests.

"It is said by Calmet, that the above texts are the very passages of Scripture, which the Jews used to write on the leaves of their phylacteries. These phylacteries were little rolls of parchment whereon were written certain words of the law. These they wore upon their forehead, and upon the wrist of the left arm."-Smith's view of the Hebrews). Pg. 220.

[oremites]

Of course, this puts you directly at odds with Joseph Smith.

I apologize, but I'm confused by the quote labeled "Joseph Smith said:"

Could you tell me which parts of that Joseph Smith said and which parts are quotes from someone else?

Thanks.

[Brant Gardner]

Of course, this puts you directly at odds with Joseph Smith.

If you are suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a trained historian and that he accepted the work someone else did uncritically, then we agree. That was all you meant, wasn't it?

[Bob Crockett]

See John W. Welch, "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and "An Unparallel." FARMS Preliminary Reports, 1985.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

As much as I am a fan of Jack Welch, I take exception to his analysis. An inventory of unparallels is not a legitimate way to analyze the question of plagiarism.

I once authored what I considered a ground-breaking law review article on the subject of whether software should be considered tangible property. I used a few original examples and turns of phrases in a lengthy piece. I had been a software engineer and had drawn attention to the fact that electrical charges in transistors occupied physical space. About two years later a Midwest law review issues an article on the very same subject but unlike my piece took no position on the issue. The piece was double the length of mine but in key sections lifted entire paragraphs word for word including my examples and turns of phrases. Without attribution. When I complained to the university they pointed out that the article had a lot of dissimilarities and had a different conclusion.

However, the law looks to similarities and ignores dissimilarities. Usually. Welch's article largely failed.

[Mortal Man]

I apologize, but I'm confused by the quote labeled "Joseph Smith said:"

Could you tell me which parts of that Joseph Smith said and which parts are quotes from someone else?

Thanks.

Joseph Smith wrote everything in the quote.

[altersteve]

Of course, this puts you directly at odds with Joseph Smith.

And of course, this would only be a problem for us if we believed that everything a prophet says is infallible. But we don't.

[oremites]

Joseph Smith wrote everything in the quote.

Sorry if I'm still confused, but that appears to be a quote from "American Antiquities" by Priest. That's what is says at the beginning of the quote.

[altersteve]

Sorry if I'm still confused, but that appears to be a quote from "American Antiquities" by Priest. That's what is says at the beginning of the quote.

"From Priest's American Antiquities" is the name of an article Joseph wrote for the Times and Seasons.

[Brant Gardner]

Joseph was entering a quotation from Josiah Priest's Ameircan Antiquities. My reprint of the 1834 edition has the quotation on pp. 65-67, with differences in paragraphing, but none in words in the quick read I did (which means I don't stand by the idea of a precise copy <grin>).

[oremites]

Joseph was entering a quotation from Josiah Priest's Ameircan Antiquities. My reprint of the 1834 edition has the quotation on pp. 65-67, with differences in paragraphing, but none in words in the quick read I did (which means I don't stand by the idea of a precise copy <grin>).

So, in other words, none of that was from Joseph Smith. It was all quoting from Josiah Priest's book.

[Brant Gardner]

So, in other words, none of that was from Joseph Smith. It was all quoting from Josiah Priest's book.

Right. Although we can assume that Joseph thought it offered some corroboration for the Book of Mormon, else he would not have entered it. Other brethren used Josiah Priest that way, so it is no surprise.

[oremites]

Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to understand which parts (if any) of that quote Joseph Smith wrote himself.