Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm all for new models, but there is still that same glaring problem with this one: Grotius was opposed to the idea that Israelites migrated to the Americas. He was also aware that there were no horses in the Americas.

It doesn't seem at all likely that a person who is on record saying there are no Israelites or horses in the Americas would author a book about Israelites and horses in the Americas. If he was inspired to know differently, wouldn't he change his views on the matter? From what I can tell, he always believed the Americas were populated by a Germanic people in the north and Chinese in the south, with some Ethiopians mixed in there somewhere. No Hebrews, Israelites or Jews. Almost as if Grotius foreshadowed criticism of the Book of Mormon claim that Israelites (with horses) founded America.

How can this be explained?

Scholars have hypothesized that Grotius' paper was meant partially as a polemic against the Spanish who the Dutch were at war with, but that he didn't truly believe the theory he put forth. Essentially, the Spanish justified their ill treatment of the natives on the basis that they were Jews. Grotius was simply turning the tables and saying they were descended from Christians and, therefore, unworthy of the treatment received at the hands of the Spanish. But even still, Grotius had a story to write involving a covenant people and their eventual destruction. He didn't have to believe that the Indians were Jews in order to write the story. It was simply a convenient form that allowed him to convey the intended message, part of which is the convincing of the Jews.

As for horses, I attribute this to a translation problem from the Latin to the English. It's clear to me that horses are not intended to be part of the Nephite milieu. You can scarcely find a description or a picture of the 30 Years War that doesn't include horses. The point is that Grotius well knew the importance of horses in warfare. If he intended horses to be part of the Nephite world we would see them taking a very active role. Instead we see occasional mentions that aren't part of warfare. So my theory is that where we see "horse" Grotius used the name for an animal unknown to the English translator. The animal name was most likely the name given by the natives to an animal not existing in Europe. The English translator simply used the familiar English word "horse" because he thought it matched the context (it was used in conjunction with “chariot”).

Edited February 17, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Another challenge to this exercise is defining 17th and 18th century geographic terms. Grotius and others in the 17th century usually lumped all the New World together into a geographic region called the Indies. That vast Pacific Ocean that so clearly separates the West Indies (America) from the East Indies (Southeast Asia) in our minds, was nothing more than a narrow strait to Grotius, a few miles across. This misunderstanding is the main reason why most of the theories about the origins of the Native Americans include lost tribes -- Nephthalites as they were known -- arriving from the Great Tartary and Malay. 

In the map to the left, Brema (Burma) is just a short canoe ride to California (Mendocino).
 

The map of the world was actually much more advanced than you imagine in Grotius' time. This map was published in 1630 by a Dutch mapmaker and clearly shows the vast Pacific Ocean.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is one reason I believe that it is an inspired account. The other reason is spiritual.

A seventeenth century manuscript lacks the explanatory power "by the gift and power of God" does. Of course, one wold have to believe in God, Jesus, and angels also. I seem to fall into that category.

Glenn

I'm keeping an open mind. I've already had to change some of my long held assumptions.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The map of the world was actually much more advanced than you imagine in Grotius' time. This map was published in 1630 by a Dutch mapmaker and clearly shows the vast Pacific Ocean.

Pretty much the same thing. Look at the northwest corner and you'll see the same Mendocino and Nevada landmass running past the edge of the map while the right side begins with the Tartary Sea, Korea, Japan and New Guinea. On that map you'll see Terra Australis directly south of Northern California. Some maps of the same period put Java and New Guinea in that space south of California. Take a closer look at the map. The Pacific Ocean is rather narrow, most of that space is "Unknown Southern Land"

The Pacific Ocean was unchartered territory during the time your hypothetical author would have written his Book of Mormon. If your theory is correct, there would be no need to stretch the text to make horses fit. The author could have intended any of that unknown space there as the setting. Maybe an island/peninsula, with elephants, silk, horses and Hebrews. For example.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

Grotius authored it. However, I’ve speculated that he was inspired to know, on some level, the actual events that occurred in the Americas. Perhaps his level of inspiration was limited to the knowledge that two great civilizations had been destroyed because of wickedness, having once had been God’s chosen peoples. Perhaps he learned through revelation substantially more historical details than that.

The original would presumably have been written in Latin and then subsequently translated into English by one of his contemporaries. Fast forward 200 years and Joseph reads it to his scribes either using the seer stone to “see” the text (the manuscript may or may not have been extant) or by reading a physical manuscript that had come into his possession or a combination of both.

I am not seeing this as being a better "explanation" than the usual Cumorah- Moroni- Joseph Smith- seerstone "explanation" frankly.

This one seems a bit more convoluted and clearly one must first agree that the book is "true" - before even thinking about how this explanation could have come about.

I am not seeing this as convincing to non-Mormons at all.

But of course neither is the original story as such without spiritual confimation anyway.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Pretty much the same thing. Look at the northwest corner and you'll see the same Mendocino and Nevada landmass running past the edge of the map while the right side begins with the Tartary Sea, Korea, Japan and New Guinea. On that map you'll see Terra Australis directly south of Northern California. Some maps of the same period put Java and New Guinea in that space south of California. Take a closer look at the map. The Pacific Ocean is rather narrow, most of that space is "Unknown Southern Land"

I am not following you at all. The Pacific Ocean is vast. The map does seem to combine Australia and Antarctica into a single, ill-defined landmass but it is nowhere near California. The islands of the East Indies are across the Pacific Ocean as they should be. 

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Pacific Ocean was unchartered territory during the time your hypothetical author would have written his Book of Mormon. If your theory is correct, there would be no need to stretch the text to make horses fit. The author could have intended any of that unknown space there as the setting. Maybe an island/peninsula, with elephants, silk, horses and Hebrews. For example.

Still not following you.

The original author didn’t include horses. They only ended up in the text as part of the translation. 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not seeing this as being a better "explanation" than the usual Cumorah- Moroni- Joseph Smith- seerstone "explanation" frankly.

This one seems a bit more convoluted and clearly one must first agree that the book is "true" - before even thinking about how this explanation could have come about.

I am not seeing this as convincing to non-Mormons at all.

But of course neither is the original story as such without spiritual confimation anyway.

This will only be convincing to non-Mormons when the original 17th Century manuscripts are found.

The point of this model isn’t to convince the average Mormon or anybody else for that matter. The point is to conform with the evidence. The evidence shows the Book of Mormon was written in Early Modern English. The evidence shows Grotius’ thought in every aspect of the work.

There may be other models out there that fit this evidence better than mine. But, if so, I haven’t seen one. The traditional model and the 19th Century models clearly do not conform to the evidence. I’m simply asking people to set aside their preferred model temporarily and look strictly at the evidence. 

Having recently read several of Galileo’s works, I can sympathize with him. He expressed frustration that people simply refused to consider the evidence since they were so sure they already knew the truth on certain matters. Even when presented with irrefutable proof of things they still refused to believe, at times concocting outlandish explanations. Some did address the evidence and actually were able to change Galileo’s mind on some things he was wrong about such as the cause of the tides. When all sorts of ploys couldn’t overcome Galileo they were finally able to silence him with the charge of heresy. I’ve had each one of these reactions to Galileo on this forum (ridicule, outlandish explanations for evidence, refusal to honestly consider evidence that contradicted a preconceived world view, and insinuations I should lose my church membership) so while I’m just some dude on the internet and nothing compared to Galileo I feel like I might be on to something. 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

I am not following you at all. The Pacific Ocean is vast. The map does seem to combine Australia and Antarctica into a single, ill-defined landmass but it is nowhere near California. The islands of the East Indies are across the Pacific Ocean as they should be. 

If you can't see it on the maps, then we can take what Grotius himself said about the geography and distances of "America, or Western India"

"I see that there are many who think that all those tribes were from Scythia—which we now call Great Tartary. They base their argument on this, that at Anianus—be it a strait or a bay (for which of the two it is not clear)—there is no great space between Tartary and America.

"Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits, and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus,  Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, &c. 

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Still not following you. The original author didn’t include horses. They only ended up in the text as part of the translation. 

How about the elephants, sheep, cattle, goats, and swine?

Edited February 18, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

36 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If you can't see it on the maps, then we can take what Grotius himself said about the geography and distances of "America, or Western India"

"I see that there are many who think that all those tribes were from Scythia—which we now call Great Tartary. They base their argument on this, that at Anianus—be it a strait or a bay (for which of the two it is not clear)—there is no great space between Tartary and America.

"Now, it is credible that the old inhabitants had heard that the part of the world which is across the Straits, and which then stretches through a long tract, composed partly of continuous land and partly of small indenting inlets, under the name of New Guinea, till within view of Gilolus,  Java, and other islands of the Indian Ocean, and is all called the Austral Continent in the maps, had received its primitive inhabitants from Java, Gilolus, &c. 

Something like this.

The image you posted doesn't work. It's been hypothesized by those who've studied Grotius' paper (and I agree with their assessment) that Grotius is guessing there is a land bridge near the Bering Strait connecting Asia and America. The second paragraph you quote is talking about a connection between Australia and New Guinea and other nearby islands as far as I can tell.

40 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How about the elephants, sheep, cattle, goats, and swine?

Basically the same argument as the horses. The translator sees the animals mentioned in context of agricultural practices so he puts the agricultural animals he is familiar with. The one verse that mentions elephants also mentions horses, asses, cureloms, and cumoms. These are all distinguished from the animals mentioned in the previous verse that were used for food sources. So the context suggests these animals were used instead as beasts of burden. My guess is the translator put the beasts of burden he was familiar with. The cureloms and cumoms are a different issue but either the translator "ran out" of beasts of burden or perhaps had some additional context (like the sealed portion) that made it clear these animals were something entirely different from any animals he was aware of. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I’ve had each one of these reactions to Galileo on this forum (ridicule, outlandish explanations for evidence, refusal to honestly consider evidence that contradicted a preconceived world view, and insinuations I should lose my church membership) so while I’m just some dude on the internet and nothing compared to Galileo I feel like I might be on to something. 

You're proposing a Dutch lawyer in the 17th century wrote the Book of Mormon which is believed by millions of people to be scripture, so you're going to get some tough questions. But I haven't seen anybody ridicule you, or accuse you of heresy. If anything, you're getting some good engagement. 

I'm not even opposed to your model. I'm open to a 17th century author/translator, but to me it seems highly unlikely that Grotius would write a book about Jews in America. But it could be possible he, or someone else, wrote a book about Jews on an island/peninsula among the other isles of the sea that were also populated by Jews. This was a common theme in the 15th and 16th century. I linked above to the Spanish accounts of bearded white men believed to Hebrews and Phoenicians trading through the islands of the Pacific, which were depicted on maps as being very near, and even right next to, America.

There's very little in the BOM text to make me think our 17th century author intended a location on the mainland. The text very clearly states they were on an island in the sea, and there were many islands also inhabited by Biblical groups.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

The image you posted doesn't work.

What I'm getting at is, if we place ourselves in the 17th century, our understanding of the New World would include a number of islands in the sea, including America. The speculation at the time was that the East Indies were inhabited by Hebrews, Israelites, Phoenicians, Nephtalites, Japhethites, Hamites, Ophirites, Grandsons of Noah, Egyptian Priests, Jewish Brahmans, Rechabites, Amorites, and many others. The Solomon Islands for example, seen in the map under California, take their name from the tradition that King Solomon sent trade ships to the Indies.

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Lehites were on an island in the sea, and that there were many other islands that were inhabited by Biblical groups.

There is no conflict between what the Book of Mormon claims as its geography and what was known about the Indies in the 17th century. The anachronisms and straining over horses, silk, elephants, iron and chariots only begin when we insist the setting was on the mainland continent of America. Something the Book of Mormon never claims.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You're proposing a Dutch lawyer in the 17th century wrote the Book of Mormon which is believed by millions of people to be scripture, so you're going to get some tough questions. But I haven't seen anybody ridicule you, or accuse you of heresy. If anything, you're getting some good engagement. 

I'm not even opposed to your model. I'm open to a 17th century author/translator, but to me it seems highly unlikely that Grotius would write a book about Jews in America. But it could be possible he, or someone else, wrote a book about Jews on an island/peninsula among the other isles of the sea that were also populated by Jews. This was a common theme in the 15th and 16th century. I linked above to the Spanish accounts of bearded white men believed to Hebrews and Phoenicians trading through the islands of the Pacific, which were depicted on maps as being very near, and even right next to, America.

There's very little in the BOM text to make me think our 17th century author intended a location on the mainland. The text very clearly states they were on an island in the sea, and there were many islands also inhabited by Biblical groups.

My model is agnostic about geography for now. I’m essentially assuming a Mesoamerican location is plausible given that’s what I’ve been lead to believe is the best match based on the research that’s been discussed on this forum for many years. But I continue to keep an open mind. 

[Rajah Manchou]

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

My model is agnostic about geography for now. I’m essentially assuming a Mesoamerican location is plausible given that’s what I’ve been lead to believe is the best match based on the research that’s been discussed on this forum for many years. But I continue to keep an open mind. 

So the Book of Mormon was written by a 17th century Dutch lawyer. Other than that, everything else is plausible. 

All good, I enjoy the alternative persepctives. Looking forward to any new material you find. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So the Book of Mormon was written by a 17th century Dutch lawyer. Other than that, everything else is plausible. 

All good, I enjoy the alternative persepctives. Looking forward to any new material you find. 

I’m determined to let the evidence drive the model rather than the other way around (which is essentially the methodology of the both the apologist and the critic).

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I’m determined to let the evidence drive the model rather than the other way around (which is essentially the methodology of the both the apologist and the critic).

Which reminds me. Do you have any references to the experts that proposed Grotius "didn't truly believe the theory he put forth" about America being populated by Norse, Ethiopians, Moluccans and Chinese, but not Hebrews? 

That comment is close to letting your model drive your evidence. It feels like you are forcing Grotius to contradict himself so that your model can work.

[JarMan]

On 2/16/2018 at 11:14 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm all for new models, but there is still that same glaring problem with this one: Grotius was opposed to the idea that Israelites migrated to the Americas. He was also aware that there were no horses in the Americas.

It doesn't seem at all likely that a person who is on record saying there are no Israelites or horses in the Americas would author a book about Israelites and horses in the Americas. If he was inspired to know differently, wouldn't he change his views on the matter? From what I can tell, he always believed the Americas were populated by a Germanic people in the north and Chinese in the south, with some Ethiopians mixed in there somewhere. No Hebrews, Israelites or Jews. Almost as if Grotius foreshadowed criticism of the Book of Mormon claim that Israelites (with horses) founded America.

How can this be explained?

I have an additional theory regarding this perceived problem. This is that Grotius published his dissertation on the origins of the natives as a purposeful red herring. His Book of Mormon manuscript could fall into the wrong hands, especially after the English translator was in possession of it. To prevent it from being traced back to him (he’d already been imprisoned once for having unconventional beliefs) he published his dissertation so that he had some plausible deniability—an alibi, if you will. I’ve mentioned before that this scholar doesn’t think Grotius believed what he wrote in the dissertation. One reason he cites is that Grotius makes logical errors in support of his position the scholar believes he was too intelligent to make. So he writes it off as being a politically motivated hit piece on the Spanish. 

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Which reminds me. Do you have any references to the experts that proposed Grotius "didn't truly believe the theory he put forth" about America being populated by Norse, Ethiopians, Moluccans and Chinese, but not Hebrews? 

That comment is close to letting your model drive your evidence. It feels like you are forcing Grotius to contradict himself so that your model can work.

See the link in my previous post. 

[Tacenda]

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/02/mormon-wellness-project-013-emmanuel-swedenborg-father-mormonism/

After listening to this, I wonder what the apologists say about it. It just seems like excuse after excuse for Joseph using things around him to form Mormonism. When is it going to stop? Don't get me wrong, maybe that's how God wants it, just don't know or can't get my head around it quite yet. 

Do not use apologist as a negative.

[JarMan]

On 2/17/2018 at 8:17 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

There's very little in the BOM text to make me think our 17th century author intended a location on the mainland. The text very clearly states they were on an island in the sea, and there were many islands also inhabited by Biblical groups.

I’m reading Menasseh ben Israel’s Hope of Israel (1652) which basically identifies the lost tribes with many different people around the world including some in America. His comments give us an idea how someone from that time understood the phrase “islands of the sea.”

Quote

The Islands of the Sea; so almost all translate it; but I think it
is to be rendred The Islands of the West, for (jam) in holy Scripture signifies The West, as in Gen. 28. 14. and in many other places; and upon this account those Israelites are implyed, who are Westward from the Holy Land, among whom the Americans are.

 The point is I don’t think we necessarily have to take the word isle or island literally. 

[JarMan]

On 2/16/2018 at 11:14 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

It doesn't seem at all likely that a person who is on record saying there are no Israelites or horses in the Americas would author a book about Israelites and horses in the Americas. If he was inspired to know differently, wouldn't he change his views on the matter? From what I can tell, he always believed the Americas were populated by a Germanic people in the north and Chinese in the south, with some Ethiopians mixed in there somewhere. No Hebrews, Israelites or Jews. Almost as if Grotius foreshadowed criticism of the Book of Mormon claim that Israelites (with horses) founded America.

How can this be explained?

Menasseh ben Israel, who I mentioned earlier, was a known associate of Grotius so I’ve been going through some of his writing, particularly Hope of Israel. One thing he mentions is that he believes Israelites were scattered to China and then made their way to Panama and Peru. 

Quote

The other Jesuite is Alfonsis Cimedro, who likewise saith, that there is a great number of Jewes in the Province of Oroensis, on the West part of China, who know nothing of the comming, and suffering of Jesus, And he from thence gathers, that they are of the ten Tribes, (which opinion I also am of) because those Chineses
observe many Jewish Rites which you may see in a manuscript, which the noble Jaochimus Wicofortius hath. And why might not some of them saile from China to New- Spaine, through the streight between China, and Anian, and Quivira, which doe border upon New- Spaine ; and from thence they went to the Isles of Panama, Peru, and those thereabouts. These in my judgement are those Chinesese of whom Isaiah speakes. Chap. 49. vers. 12. ( treating about Israels returne to his Country.) Behold, these shall come from afarre, and these from the North, and from the West, and these from the Land of Sinim.

This mirrors Grotius’ idea that the people of Peru came from China. We know from footnote 21 of the paper I linked to that Grotius was considering ben Israel’s hypothesis on Jewish origins when he wrote his dissertation. So perhaps Grotius bought into the Israelite/Chinese/Peruvian connection. If so, he was careful not to mention the Israelite part of it—possibly for the polemical reasons I’ve already mentioned. Interestingly we find Isaiah 49 (cited by ben Israel in support of the Chinese connection) in the Book of Mormon in the context of the scattering and gathering of Israel (1 Neph 19-21). If you connect the dots the Book of Mormon in these chapters is telling the people of Peru (among others) that they are part of the lost tribes and this message is meant for them.  

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Menasseh ben Israel, who I mentioned earlier, was a known associate of Grotius so I’ve been going through some of his writing, particularly Hope of Israel. One thing he mentions is that he believes Israelites were scattered to China and then made their way to Panama and Peru. 

This is the main reason I didn't want to dismiss your Grotius material without a fair shake. His name has come up frequently in my readings about Nephthalites (a term for a lost tribe coined by a Dutch mapmaker) in Tartary and the Indies.

There's a very direct set of dots linking Egyptian Jews to Native Americans Jews in the literature of the 17th century. It all starts with Athansius Kircher who, no joke, spent a good portion of his lifetime translating a mysterious unpublished manuscript written by an Egyptian Jew named....Nephi.

Regardless of what critics of these 17th century author theories might say, it is not statistically probable that the name Nephi occurs in the context of an Egyptian Jewish manuscript that was discovered in a German library in the 17th century and in the Book of Mormon, an apocryphal history of Egyptian Jews migrating to the Indies.

Grotius was in communication with the small cast of characters working on translating the Nephi text. He met with Kircher's benefactor, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, on several occasions.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

This mirrors Grotius’ idea that the people of Peru came from China. 

It also mirrors the Grotius' idea that the people of Mesoamerica came from Ethiopia. The small circle of orientalists I mentioned above (Kircher, Peiresc, Grotius) had a lot to say on the relationship between Ethiopia (also a part of the Indies) and ancient texts like the Book of Enoch and the Nephi text Kircher was translating.

[JarMan]

21 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It also mirrors the Grotius' idea that the people of Mesoamerica came from Ethiopia. The small circle of orientalists I mentioned above (Kircher, Peiresc, Grotius) had a lot to say on the relationship between Ethiopia (also a part of the Indies) and ancient texts like the Book of Enoch and the Nephi text Kircher was translating.

Thanks for the tip on Kircher. Looking into him I've discovered some of his interesting inventions and I've started a new thread about them.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 2/14/2018 at 9:30 PM, churchistrue said:

I guess you haven't read through the rest of this thread?

Probably so; give me a two sentence explanation.