Book of Mormon similarities with 1st Century Roman Empire

[JarMan]

I came across an interesting article that compares the Sicarii (apparently a subset of the zealots of the 1st Century) to the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. The author brings forth 14 separate characteristics that are common between the Sicarii and secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. He presents these similarities as supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Similarly, there are striking similarities between an event in Roman history regarding a robber known as Tacfarinas and the Gadianton robbers presented in the first five chapters of 3 Nephi. Tacfarinas was a dissenter from the Roman army who enlisted the help of Berber tribes in Northern Africa to raid Roman towns and fight against the Roman armies. The following is a summary of several of these similarities (all scriptural references are 3 Nephi).

 

Tacfarinas’ army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Roman troops and Berber tribesmen

Lived in mountains and wilderness

Raids in Roman territory capturing booty and killing many, retreat to the mountains and wilderness

Tried siege warfare, but defeated when Roman armies broke the siege by attacking the siegers

Gadianton Robber army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Nephites (1:28, 3:10) and Lamanites (1:29)

Lived in mountains and wilderness (1:27, 4:1)

Laid waste to cities, killed many (2:11, 4:1), retreat to mountains and wilderness (2:17, 4:13)

Tried siege (4:16) but defeated when Nephites attacked the siegers (4:21-22)

 

Roman army tactics

Built up and manned fortifications on edge of province

Brought in experienced General from Rome

Offered a pitched conventional battle and prevailed rather than fighting them in the wilderness and mountains

United with some of the Berbers to fight Tacfarinas’ armies

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Tacfarinas’ brother

Ended the war for good by killing Tacfarinas

Offered amnesty to soldiers to dissent from robber army

Nephite army tactics

Built fortifications round about and manned them with troops (3:14)

Brought in Gidgiddoni, the chiefest Nephite captain (3:18)

Against the requests of people who wanted to pursue them into the wilderness, Gidgiddoni instead opted to meet them in a conventional battle and prevailed (3:20-21)

United with some of the Lamanites to fight Gadianton Robber armies (2:11-14)

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Giddianhi (4:14-15)

Ended the war for good by killing Zemnarihah (4:28-29)

Gave freedom to captured soldiers on oath of keeping peace (5:4)

 

Tacfarinas’ attempt at diplomacy

Sent envoys to Rome

Claimed to be fighting a war of liberation

Offered peace for land

Promised never-ending war if terms weren’t accepted

Roman emperor outraged to be addressed by a mere robber as if he was a legitimate leader

Gadianton Robbers’ attempt at diplomacy

Wrote a letter to Nephite governor (3:1-10)

Claimed to be fighting to regain their rights and government (3:4, 10)

Offered peace for land (3:6-8)

Promised a war of extinction if terms weren’t accepted (3:8)

Nephite governor “exceedingly astonished” (3:11) and would not be threatened by a robber (3:12)

 

In an epic coincidence, the Roman conflict with Tacfarinas ended in the year 24 AD while the Nephite conflict with the robbers in 3 Nephi ended somewhere between 22 AD and 25 AD (5:7). So the question is, do these similarities (both with the Sicarii and with Tacfarinas) tend to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

Edited January 1, 2018 by JarMan

[Calm]

 

Quote

 

Some time ago I read an article by Daniel C. Peterson about various archaeological, social, and historical evidences for the Book of Mormon as an ancient record. In his article Peterson discusses similarities between the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon and the guerilla groups of the twentieth century. [1]

As I studied the Gadianton robbers and the secret combination formed by Akish among the Jaredites, I observed the similarities illustrated by Peterson. As a result of my studies, I found myself becoming familiar with the scriptural record concerning these secret combinations. While serving a mission in Ireland in 2001, I purchased an old Bible out of mere curiosity. As I went through the concordance and appendices, I came across a reference to the Sicarii, an ancient Jewish group of robbers and assassins. From there I was led to several references to the works of Josephus regarding these Sicarii and other groups with which they were associated. I read through these various passages and found myself face to face with Gadianton robbers in an ancient Jewish setting.

In this paper I will examine how these secret combinations closely parallel each other in tactics, society, iniquity, and downfall. Each worked “according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness” (2 Nephi 26:22), and these combinations were “given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness” (3 Nephi 6:28). These similarities constitute what I believe is compelling evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

 

The above is from your link.

Are you going to suggest as well that because Peterson found a number of similarities with the guerilla warfare of the 20th century, the BoM was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 20th century?

Edited January 1, 2018 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

I came across an interesting article that compares the Sicarii (apparently a subset of the zealots of the 1st Century) to the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. The author brings forth 14 separate characteristics that are common between the Sicarii and secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. He presents these similarities as supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Similarly, there are striking similarities between an event in Roman history regarding a robber known as Tacfarinas and the Gadianton robbers presented in the first five chapters of 3 Nephi. Tacfarinas was a dissenter from the Roman army who enlisted the help of Berber tribes in Northern Africa to raid Roman towns and fight against the Roman armies. The following is a summary of several of these similarities (all scriptural references are 3 Nephi).

 

Tacfarinas’ army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Roman troops and Berber tribesmen

Lived in mountains and wilderness

Raids in Roman territory capturing booty and killing many, retreat to the mountains and wilderness

Tried siege warfare, but defeated when Roman armies broke the siege by attacking the siegers

Gadianton Robber army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Nephites (1:28, 3:10) and Lamanites (1:29)

Lived in mountains and wilderness (1:27, 4:1)

Laid waste to cities, killed many (2:11, 4:1), retreat to mountains and wilderness (2:17, 4:13)

Tried siege (4:16) but defeated when Nephites attacked the siegers (4:21-22)

 

Roman army tactics

Built up and manned fortifications on edge of province

Brought in experienced General from Rome

Offered a pitched conventional battle and prevailed rather than fighting them in the wilderness and mountains

United with some of the Berbers to fight Tacfarinas’ armies

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Tacfarinas’ brother

Ended the war for good by killing Tacfarinas

Offered amnesty to soldiers to dissent from robber army

Nephite army tactics

Built fortifications round about and manned them with troops (3:14)

Brought in Gidgiddoni, the chiefest Nephite captain (3:18)

Against the requests of people who wanted to pursue them into the wilderness, Gidgiddoni instead opted to meet them in a conventional battle and prevailed (3:20-21)

United with some of the Lamanites to fight Gadianton Robber armies (2:11-14)

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Giddianhi (4:14-15)

Ended the war for good by killing Zemnarihah (4:28-29)

Gave freedom to captured soldiers on oath of keeping peace (5:4)

 

Tacfarinas’ attempt at diplomacy

Sent envoys to Rome

Claimed to be fighting a war of liberation

Offered peace for land

Promised never-ending war if terms weren’t accepted

Roman emperor outraged to be addressed by a mere robber as if he was a legitimate leader

Gadianton Robbers’ attempt at diplomacy

Wrote a letter to Nephite governor (3:1-10)

Claimed to be fighting to regain their rights and government (3:4, 10)

Offered peace for land (3:6-8)

Promised a war of extinction if terms weren’t accepted (3:8)

Nephite governor “exceedingly astonished” (3:11) and would not be threatened by a robber (3:12)

 

In an epic coincidence, the Roman conflict with Tacfarinas ended in the year 24 AD while the Nephite conflict with the robbers in 3 Nephi ended somewhere between 22 AD and 25 AD (5:7). So the question is, do these similarities (both with the Sicarii and with Tacfarinas) tend to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

I think this makes a compelling case for the very real possibility that the Book of Mormon is a book of pseudo-scriptural fiction, based loosely on real facts, and authored by the Jewish historian Josephus.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

I came across an interesting article that compares the Sicarii (apparently a subset of the zealots of the 1st Century) to the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. The author brings forth 14 separate characteristics that are common between the Sicarii and secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. He presents these similarities as supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Now were you not the one that started a thread some time ago about Book of Mormon similarities to 16th Century England (I think, too lazy to check exactly) also? What you are doing is showing that one can find parallels for the Book of Mormon in several places and times in history. Of course one will also find unparallels also. The problem is that one needs to provide evidence that the parallels are relevant.

Glenn

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

 

The above is from your link.

Are you going to suggest as well that because Peterson found a number of similarities with the guerilla warfare of the 20th century, the BoM was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 20th century?

There are things in the Book of Mormon that are ubiquitous in human history. Guerrilla warfare is one of them. So are things like murdering leaders, religious dissension, class distinctions, and a host of other things. These types of similarities with known societies form a baseline of parallels with the Book of Mormon that is wholly non-remarkable. 20th Century guerrilla warfare falls on this baseline. The incident with Tacfarinas in the 1st Century, however, clearly has several specific similarities with a particular "incident" in the Book of Mormon. This convergence of similarities is entirely remarkable because of its specificity and multiplicity. Specificity and multiplicity are both needed to demonstrate a parallel does not fall on the baseline and is, therefore, potentially meaningful.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

................................................

In an epic coincidence, the Roman conflict with Tacfarinas ended in the year 24 AD while the Nephite conflict with the robbers in 3 Nephi ended somewhere between 22 AD and 25 AD (5:7). So the question is, do these similarities (both with the Sicarii and with Tacfarinas) tend to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

The horns of the dilemma leave us with a moot point:  Either we affirm that the BofM story is fully credible and realistic, and therefore authentic history, or we find that the author (whomever that was from the 16th century AD) used his detailed knowledge of Roman history to tell a closely similar story.  Either way, the BofM story cannot simply be dismissed as pure fiction.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Now were you not the one that started a thread some time ago about Book of Mormon similarities to 16th Century England (I think, too lazy to check exactly) also? What you are doing is showing that one can find parallels for the Book of Mormon in several places and times in history. Of course one will also find unparallels also. The problem is that one needs to provide evidence that the parallels are relevant.

Glenn

I've had multiple threads on similar topics in the past few months. My hypothesis has evolved a little bit over this time, but my current thinking is that there are multiple, very significant similarities between the Book of Mormon and 17th Century Netherlands. I've suggested that the Book of Mormon could have been produced between about 1620 and 1660 by someone closely associated with Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist, civic leader, historian, poet, and religious writer. I'm a very strong believer in the truth of the Book of Mormon and I am hypothesizing that the divine nature of the Book of Mormon can be reconciled with a 17th Century origin. As far as whether these parallels are relevant, I think I can make a compelling case for their relevancy. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

There are things in the Book of Mormon that are ubiquitous in human history. Guerrilla warfare is one of them. So are things like murdering leaders, religious dissension, class distinctions, and a host of other things. These types of similarities with known societies form a baseline of parallels with the Book of Mormon that is wholly non-remarkable. 20th Century guerrilla warfare falls on this baseline. The incident with Tacfarinas in the 1st Century, however, clearly has several specific similarities with a particular "incident" in the Book of Mormon. This convergence of similarities is entirely remarkable because of its specificity and multiplicity. Specificity and multiplicity are both needed to demonstrate a parallel does not fall on the baseline and is, therefore, potentially meaningful.

Your points are well taken, and that reminds me of a Marine Corps Institute course on Guerrilla Warfare which was available back in a time when the Army Special Forces were ramping up their capability to deal with that very problem.  One major part of that MCI course was to learn from guerrilla warfare doctrine as practiced by Mao Tse-tung -- who was quoted extensively because he was an acknowledge expert on the subject.  The basic principles of successful guerrilla warfare do not change through time..

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I've had multiple threads on similar topics in the past few months. My hypothesis has evolved a little bit over this time, but my current thinking is that there are multiple, very significant similarities between the Book of Mormon and 17th Century Netherlands. I've suggested that the Book of Mormon could have been produced between about 1620 and 1660 by someone closely associated with Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist, civic leader, historian, poet, and religious writer. I'm a very strong believer in the truth of the Book of Mormon and I am hypothesizing that the divine nature of the Book of Mormon can be reconciled with a 17th Century origin. As far as whether these parallels are relevant, I think I can make a compelling case for their relevancy. 

I'd be very interested to see how you make that case.  Of course the Netherlands was a powerful colonial nation at that time, and very influential.  However, I am not clear on whether you see someone like Grotius as the translator of the Plates of Mormon and Nephi, or a composer of historical fiction based on his knowledge of actual history. In either case, how do you imagine that the text appears in English before the eyes of Joseph in that dark hat of his?  Does the Dutch translator render it initially in English, or does he have someone else do that job?

[JarMan]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The horns of the dilemma leave us with a moot point:  Either we affirm that the BofM story is fully credible and realistic, and therefore authentic history, or we find that the author (whomever that was from the 16th century AD) used his detailed knowledge of Roman history to tell a closely similar story.  Either way, the BofM story cannot simply be dismissed as pure fiction.

I agree with this assessment. Clearly the Book of Mormon either describes real historical events or was produced by someone with a masterful knowledge of history, religion, government, etc. The fact that so many of the events in the Book of Mormon are ubiquitous in history speaks to this point. For a time in college I helped with a magazine that published short sci-fi stories. My job was to read the various submissions, separate out the junk and send the stories with potential to the editors for further evaluation. The vast majority of the submissions were nowhere near publishable quality. Many of them demonstrated naivete about various aspects of the world (not to mention the basics of story-telling) which marked them as being amateurish. I don't see any of these markers in the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, I see a literal masterpiece of literature that speaks of timeless truths relevant to all peoples of any time in history.

[carbon dioxide]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

 or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

One thing is for sure.  Joseph Smith did not have good knowledge of Roman Empire history.

[JarMan]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd be very interested to see how you make that case.  Of course the Netherlands was a powerful colonial nation at that time, and very influential.  However, I am not clear on whether you see someone like Grotius as the translator of the Plates of Mormon and Nephi, or a composer of historical fiction based on his knowledge of actual history. In either case, how do you imagine that the text appears in English before the eyes of Joseph in that dark hat of his?  Does the Dutch translator render it initially in English, or does he have someone else do that job?

Grotius published a paper in which he speculates about the origins of the Native Americans. In his paper he mentions the speculations of others that they were the lost tribes who came by boat or people who came from Asia immediately following the tower of Babel (as well as other theories). He rejects all of these theories and comes up with his own explanation. My hypothetical 17th Century writer is one day pondering the origin of the natives in the western hemisphere and God makes it known to him that America once supported great civilizations, but that these civilizations eventually perished in great wars because of the wickedness of the people. As he looks at the fate of his own people who are in the midst of both the 80 Years War with Spain and the 30 Years War in most of Europe (which rates as the third deadliest war in human history after WWII and WWI) he is inspired to write the "history" of the peoples in America which will help serve as a warning (perhaps to his own people) of their potential fate if they do not repent and turn to Christ. I've called this the super-expansionist model since the Book of Mormon, in this case, would only be an actual history of people in America in a very broad sense.

My hypothetical writer composes the original text in Latin (the lingua franca of the day) and draws on his vast knowledge of world history, religion, and government, and combined with his own notable literary skills and divine inspiration we get a Latin text of the Book of Mormon. The work doesn't go forth to the world at that time, but this writer has close associates in England who also share his religious sentiments and are great admirers of his works and his genius. One or more of these Englishmen translate the text into English.

Now we have a 17th Century text of the Book of Mormon but, of course, we still have to explain how those words came to be on the seer stone in Joseph's hat. This is pretty simple to explain if you believe Joseph was able to transmit ancient works (such as the parchment of John referenced in D&C 7) by the power of God. But this, of course, raises questions about the gold plates. Personally, I take the view that there really were actual gold plates recovered from the hill. So this would require that they be deposited by somebody. I am open to gold plates being deposited by an ancient "Moroni" or by an English or Dutch man from the 17th Century. Both the English and Dutch had access to upstate New York at this time in history, although the nearest fort seems to have been about where present-day Albany is located.

An alternate story for how the English text comes to Joseph is that the actual English manuscript from the 17th Century is preserved and passed down eventually coming into the hands of Joseph. Perhaps Joseph's great uncle Dr. John Smith came into possession of them at some point. At any rate, the words somehow get from the original manuscript to Joseph's manuscript through his scribes. I don't have a naturalistic theory for how this happened. The best I can come up with is that the stone in the hat narrative represented only a small portion of the process, but that the main process consisted simply of the scribes writing down Joseph's dictation as he read from the original manuscript.

Edited January 1, 2018 by JarMan

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

........................................... I've called this the super-expansionist model since the Book of Mormon, in this case, would only be an actual history of people in America in a very broad sense.

That would mean that any archeological correlation with actual civilizations could not be found.  But of course they are, and that puts a damper on your assumptions.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

My hypothetical writer composes the original text in Latin (the lingua franca of the day) and draws on his vast knowledge of world history, religion, and government, and combined with his own notable literary skills and divine inspiration we get a Latin text of the Book of Mormon. The work doesn't go forth to the world at that time, but this writer has close associates in England who also share his religious sentiments and are great admirers of his works and his genius. One or more of these Englishmen translate the text into English.

Now we have a 17th Century text of the Book of Mormon but, of course, we still have to explain how those words came to be on the seer stone in Joseph's hat. This is pretty simple to explain if you believe Joseph was able to transmit ancient works (such as the parchment of John referenced in D&C 7) by the power of God. But this, of course, raises questions about the gold plates. Personally, I take the view that there really were actual gold plates recovered from the hill. So this would require that they be deposited by somebody. I am open to gold plates being deposited by an ancient "Moroni" or by an English or Dutch man from the 17th Century. Both the English and Dutch had access to upstate New York at this time in history, although the nearest fort seems to have been about where present-day Albany is located.

Maybe the Flying Dutchman, or maybe Henry Hudson.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

An alternate story for how the English text comes to Joseph is that the actual English manuscript from the 17th Century is preserved and passed down eventually coming into the hands of Joseph. Perhaps Joseph's great uncle Dr. John Smith came into possession of them at some point. At any rate, the words somehow get from the original manuscript to Joseph's manuscript through his scribes. I don't have a naturalistic theory for how this happened. The best I can come up with is that the stone in the hat narrative represented only a small portion of the process, but that the main process consisted simply of the scribes writing down Joseph's dictation as he read from the original manuscript.

Wouldn't work.  Too many witnesses around the house, including the scribes.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your points are well taken, and that reminds me of a Marine Corps Institute course on Guerrilla Warfare which was available back in a time when the Army Special Forces were ramping up their capability to deal with that very problem.  One major part of that MCI course was to learn from guerrilla warfare doctrine as practiced by Mao Tse-tung -- who was quoted extensively because he was an acknowledge expert on the subject.  The basic principles of successful guerrilla warfare do not change through time..

Worth noting that our modern term guerrilla warfare largely comes out of the Peninsular war against Napoleon by Britain. (The word is Spanish for "little war") But as you note guerrilla warfare tactics don't change much and are frequently mentioned in history. An other example were European guerrilla wars against the mongols and then later the Ottomans. Since JarMan is presenting the (to me anyway) dubious Dutch connections the Snapphanes fount the Swedish army using classic guerrilla tactics. (The Swedish wars tend to get neglected in preference to British history that neglects northern Europe quite a bit)

My point is that while it's fine to raise some parallels with Tacitus or others especially in the Germanic wars these are pretty ubiquitous tactics and strategies one finds around the world.

Edited January 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That would mean that any archeological correlation with actual civilizations could not be found.  But of course they are, and that puts a damper on your assumptions.

It only puts a damper on my hypothesis if there are archaeological correlations that couldn't have been known in the 17th Century. There was actually a lot that was known about the western hemisphere at that time. You may be interested in perusing a work called "The Natural and Moral History of the Indies" first published in about 1590 by a Jesuit priest named Jose de Acosta.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UAoVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=acosta+history+indies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvYWVkrjYAhVIhlQKHQx-DfYQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cT4RAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=acosta+history+indies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvYWVkrjYAhVIhlQKHQx-DfYQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

There is a lot of information in these works about the American people and environment that is similar to what is found in the Book of Mormon (human sacrifice, healing herbs, and metallurgy, for example). And there are other similar works out there with additional information.

In addition, cartography was in peak form in the 17th Century. Here is a 1608 world map published by a Dutch cartographer http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antique-world-map.htm and here's a 1625 map of meso-America produced by a Dutch cartographer and known associate of Grotius: https://www.sanderusmaps.com/detail.cfm?c=13585 My theory is that there was enough information available in the 17th Century to produce "Mormon's Map" but I have not spent a lot of time trying to verify this.

There are also works from the time period that describe the Arabian Peninsula. Here is a page that has several maps of the Arabian Peninsula http://www.turkeyinmaps.com/Sayfa2.html Now if I could just find one that mentions NHM.  

 

 

[JarMan]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Worth noting that our modern term guerrilla warfare largely comes out of the Peninsular war against Napoleon by Britain. (The word is Spanish for "little war") But as you note guerrilla warfare tactics don't change much and are frequently mentioned in history. An other example were European guerrilla wars against the mongols and then later the Ottomans. Since JarMan is presenting the (to me anyway) dubious Dutch connections the Snapphanes fount the Swedish army using classic guerrilla tactics. (The Swedish wars tend to get neglected in preference to British history that neglects northern Europe quite a bit)

My point is that while it's fine to raise some parallels with Tacitus or others especially in the Germanic wars these are pretty ubiquitous tactics and strategies one finds around the world.

Your point about guerrilla warfare being ubiquitous is the very point I was making earlier. But I Identified (if I count correctly) 17 specific similarities between Tacfarinas' wars and the wars in 3 Nephi 1-5. It's honestly quite astonishing if you take the time to really study and compare the two wars.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Your point about guerrilla warfare being ubiquitous is the very point I was making earlier. But I Identified (if I count correctly) 17 specific similarities between Tacfarinas' wars and the wars in 3 Nephi 1-5. It's honestly quite astonishing if you take the time to really study and compare the two wars.  

But you have to have a comparison to other guerrilla battles. Most of the elements are also present in those - particularly the Napoleonic ones. Unless you do that, you can't really say that the large number of parallels is significant. It may well just be characteristic of the structure.

[JarMan]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But you have to have a comparison to other guerrilla battles. Most of the elements are also present in those - particularly the Napoleonic ones. Unless you do that, you can't really say that the large number of parallels is significant. It may well just be characteristic of the structure.

I don’t buy the idea that most of the elements are present in other guerrilla battles. You might be able to find each element if you surveyed enough instances. But the point here is the number of similarities we find by comparing a single historical series of events with a compact series of events in the Book of Mormon. I’m quite confident you cannot find a comparable correlation with the Napoleonic battles. You made the claim that you could, though, so I think it’s only fair that you now show the evidence. 

[The Nehor]

On 1/1/2018 at 12:13 AM, JarMan said:

In an epic coincidence, the Roman conflict with Tacfarinas ended in the year 24 AD while the Nephite conflict with the robbers in 3 Nephi ended somewhere between 22 AD and 25 AD (5:7). So the question is, do these similarities (both with the Sicarii and with Tacfarinas) tend to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

Warfare just does not change that much for the similarities to mean more than the writer of the Book of Mormon knew something of war.

You also ignore the differences. The Nephites were fighting for the survival of their nation while the Roman engagement was a series of relatively minor skirmishes on the outskirts of the Empire. The Nephites almost certainly did not fight like Roman legionaires or use similar fortifications.The Romans also did not stockpile enough food to feed the entire military and civilian populations for several years.

[JarMan]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Warfare just does not change that much for the similarities to mean more than the writer of the Book of Mormon knew something of war.

You also ignore the differences. The Nephites were fighting for the survival of their nation while the Roman engagement was a series of relatively minor skirmishes on the outskirts of the Empire. The Nephites almost certainly did not fight like Roman legionaires or use similar fortifications.The Romans also did not stockpile enough food to feed the entire military and civilian populations for several years.

Of course there are differences. I’m not claiming that the Book of Mormon story is a re-telling of a particular event. I’m hypothesizing that there is a direct influence. If the things in this story are common you should be able to show me another event in history that has equivalent similarities. There needs to be specificity and multiplicity both. 

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Of course there are differences. I’m not claiming that the Book of Mormon story is a re-telling of a particular event. I’m hypothesizing that there is a direct influence. If the things in this story are common you should be able to show me another event in history that has equivalent similarities. There needs to be specificity and multiplicity both. 

There cannot be a direct influence between the two unless you are suggesting Nephites and/or Romans/zealots crossed the ocean to share tactics. Otherwise at best there is an indirect influence from past events dating back at least six centuries from a common source.

Now if you can find a pre-600 BC engagement that went similarly and can trace a possible descent to the Brass Plates or some other record Lehi could have taken and something either Rome or the Zealots would have access to you can suggest a connection. If you can do that you may also have a career as an Anti-Mormon coming up with lists of possible books that ended up in Palmyra’s extensive library that Joseph Smith referenced to compile the Book of Mormon.

[Thinking]

On 12/31/2017 at 11:13 PM, JarMan said:

Gadianton Robbers’ attempt at diplomacy

Wrote a letter to Nephite governor (3:1-10)

Claimed to be fighting to regain their rights and government (3:4, 10)

Offered peace for land (3:6-8)

Promised a war of extinction if terms weren’t accepted (3:8)

Nephite governor “exceedingly astonished” (3:11) and would not be threatened by a robber (3:12)

William H. Bonney's Attempt At Diploacy

After his employer, John Tunstall, was murdered in 1878, Bonney became involved in the Lincoln County War as a Regulator.

In 1879 Bonney wrote to Governor Lew Wallace with an offer to provide information on the Chapman murder in exchange for amnesty.

Bonney met with Wallace in Lincoln on March 15, 1879, and discussed the case for over an hour. Wallace promised Bonney a complete pardon if he would offer his testimony to a grand jury.

Wallace never granted Bonney the promised pardon.

FYI: William H. Bonney is also known as Billy The Kid.

 

 

 

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There cannot be a direct influence between the two unless you are suggesting Nephites and/or Romans/zealots crossed the ocean to share tactics. Otherwise at best there is an indirect influence from past events dating back at least six centuries from a common source.

Now if you can find a pre-600 BC engagement that went similarly and can trace a possible descent to the Brass Plates or some other record Lehi could have taken and something either Rome or the Zealots would have access to you can suggest a connection. If you can do that you may also have a career as an Anti-Mormon coming up with lists of possible books that ended up in Palmyra’s extensive library that Joseph Smith referenced to compile the Book of Mormon.

I’m suggesting that Tacfarinas’ story was known by the 17th Century person who wrote the Book of Mormon. Grotius certainly knew the story since he referred to it in some of his writings. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

27 minutes ago, Thinking said:

William H. Bonney's Attempt At Diploacy

After his employer, John Tunstall, was murdered in 1878, Bonney became involved in the Lincoln County War as a Regulator.

In 1879 Bonney wrote to Governor Lew Wallace with an offer to provide information on the Chapman murder in exchange for amnesty.

Bonney met with Wallace in Lincoln on March 15, 1879, and discussed the case for over an hour. Wallace promised Bonney a complete pardon if he would offer his testimony to a grand jury.

Wallace never granted Bonney the promised pardon.

FYI: William H. Bonney is also known as Billy The Kid.

 

 

 

So we don't end up with a comedy of errors I suggest you start with learning the story of Tacfarinas. There's a pretty good Wikipedia page on him. You can also get Tacitus' Annals of Rome online to read the story as it was written a couple generations after the fact. I would also brush up on 3 Nephi 1-5. Then we might be able to have a meaningful discussion.

[Darren10]

On 1/1/2018 at 12:13 AM, JarMan said:

I came across an interesting article that compares the Sicarii (apparently a subset of the zealots of the 1st Century) to the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. The author brings forth 14 separate characteristics that are common between the Sicarii and secret combinations in the Book of Mormon. He presents these similarities as supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Similarly, there are striking similarities between an event in Roman history regarding a robber known as Tacfarinas and the Gadianton robbers presented in the first five chapters of 3 Nephi. Tacfarinas was a dissenter from the Roman army who enlisted the help of Berber tribes in Northern Africa to raid Roman towns and fight against the Roman armies. The following is a summary of several of these similarities (all scriptural references are 3 Nephi).

 

Tacfarinas’ army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Roman troops and Berber tribesmen

Lived in mountains and wilderness

Raids in Roman territory capturing booty and killing many, retreat to the mountains and wilderness

Tried siege warfare, but defeated when Roman armies broke the siege by attacking the siegers

Gadianton Robber army composition and tactics

Composed of dissenting Nephites (1:28, 3:10) and Lamanites (1:29)

Lived in mountains and wilderness (1:27, 4:1)

Laid waste to cities, killed many (2:11, 4:1), retreat to mountains and wilderness (2:17, 4:13)

Tried siege (4:16) but defeated when Nephites attacked the siegers (4:21-22)

 

Roman army tactics

Built up and manned fortifications on edge of province

Brought in experienced General from Rome

Offered a pitched conventional battle and prevailed rather than fighting them in the wilderness and mountains

United with some of the Berbers to fight Tacfarinas’ armies

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Tacfarinas’ brother

Ended the war for good by killing Tacfarinas

Offered amnesty to soldiers to dissent from robber army

Nephite army tactics

Built fortifications round about and manned them with troops (3:14)

Brought in Gidgiddoni, the chiefest Nephite captain (3:18)

Against the requests of people who wanted to pursue them into the wilderness, Gidgiddoni instead opted to meet them in a conventional battle and prevailed (3:20-21)

United with some of the Lamanites to fight Gadianton Robber armies (2:11-14)

Ended the conflict for a time by killing Giddianhi (4:14-15)

Ended the war for good by killing Zemnarihah (4:28-29)

Gave freedom to captured soldiers on oath of keeping peace (5:4)

 

Tacfarinas’ attempt at diplomacy

Sent envoys to Rome

Claimed to be fighting a war of liberation

Offered peace for land

Promised never-ending war if terms weren’t accepted

Roman emperor outraged to be addressed by a mere robber as if he was a legitimate leader

Gadianton Robbers’ attempt at diplomacy

Wrote a letter to Nephite governor (3:1-10)

Claimed to be fighting to regain their rights and government (3:4, 10)

Offered peace for land (3:6-8)

Promised a war of extinction if terms weren’t accepted (3:8)

Nephite governor “exceedingly astonished” (3:11) and would not be threatened by a robber (3:12)

 

In an epic coincidence, the Roman conflict with Tacfarinas ended in the year 24 AD while the Nephite conflict with the robbers in 3 Nephi ended somewhere between 22 AD and 25 AD (5:7). So the question is, do these similarities (both with the Sicarii and with Tacfarinas) tend to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or do they rather suggest that the Book of Mormon was produced by someone with an intimate knowledge of the 1st Century Roman Empire?

That library in Harmony, Pennsylvania was much more sophisticated than I had previously known.