Book of Mormon similarities with 1st Century Roman Empire

[Darren10]

Helaman looks like a Roman soldier as well. 

[Darren10]

13 hours 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. 

Do you mean the story as written in the golden plates? 

[Darren10]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

So the Book of Mormon is a product of both the gold plates and an English manuscript from the 16th-17th century? Thst while Joseph dictated the plates the scribes would write down their knowledge based on these manuscripts? 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Darren10

[Calm]

Jarman is not saying JS used all this stuff, but just used a manuscript which already was composed.  At least that is how I understand him.

I am still lost on how this theory is useful for explaining anything except maybe perceived parallels that if connected creates a very complicated path to get into JS's hands.

In what way does the theory answer any questions?

If I follow.....It is really just a history of Europe with madeup names and places that were imagined to be in North America, but all the author actually knew wasthe Nephites once existed and were destroyed and the rest of the history is just drawn from his studies and maybe the inspiration comes in with the doctrine or is that all borrowed and superimposed on the  Nephites as well?

-----

Whywould God use a fake history that were authored to impact a different people than where they actually ended up (as they would have no impact on people of your 17th century writer) with fake gold plates even to create a foundation for his Church?  Why not just stick with the Bible rather than jump through all those hoops to use a false and therefore weak foundation?

Edited January 2, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

49 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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

In fairness to OP, he hasn't once suggested that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in Harmony. He is exploring other explanations.

For example, JarMan did mention Joseph's great uncle Dr. John Smith, who was an Arminian theologian at Dartmouth, and was also one of the leading Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabic and Aramaic linguists in New England. Not only did Uncle John, as the Dartmouth librarian, have access to all the sophisticated materials in the Dartmouth library, but he also ran a bookshop. I'd guess he had read Josephus and Grotius and a number of other classics.

He also wrote a series of lectures on geography, natural philosophy and Newtonian astronomy, along with the entire curriculum for Dartmouth. 

Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding both took their ideas for their books about Jews in America from Dr. John Smith, so its not such a far out idea to mention his name in the context of BOM authorship/translation.

Edit: for the record, I agree with JarMan that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. But I don't believe Joseph Smith Jr. to be the author, or sole translator.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Darren10]

Here’s regarding the translating process:

 

Quote

Much is known, however, about when and where the work of translation occurred. The events are documented by several independent firsthand witnesses. Joseph Smith first obtained the gold plates at the hill Cumorah in New York, in the early morning hours of September 22, 1827. To avoid local harassment and mobs, he moved to harmony, pennsylvania, in December 1827. There he copied and translated some of the characters from the plates, with his wife Emma and her brother Reuben Hale acting as scribes. In 1856, Emma recalled that Joseph dictated the translation to her word for word, spelled out the proper names, and would correct her scribal errors even though he could not see what she had written. At one point while translating, Joseph was surprised to learn that Jerusalem had walls around it (E. C. Briggs, "Interview with David Whitmer," Saints' Herald 31 [June 21, 1884]:396-97). Emma was once asked in a later interview if Joseph had read from any books or notes while dictating. She answered, "He had neither," and when pressed, added: "If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me" (Saints' Herald 26 [Oct. 1, 1879]:290).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Translation_By_Joseph_Smith

Joseph had nothing to dictate from and would correct Emma’s “scribal erors” without even seeing what [exactly] she scribed. 

3 Nephi 1-2 speaks of the Gadianton Robbers hiding in the mountains as their “strongholds” and murdering many Nephites amd Lamanites. According to Enden Watson, 3 Nephi 1 was translated Friday May 8, 1829. http://www.eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm

According ot his website, Oliver Cowdery most likely scribed for Joseph Smith for 3 Nephi 1-2. 

Quote

The larger portion of O that is extant covers most of the text from Alma 22 through Helaman 3, although no leaf there is fully extant. All of this section is in Oliver Cowdery’s hand except for twenty-eight words in Joseph Smith’s hand (in Alma 45:22). There are also a large number of smaller fragments covering various other parts of the text, including significant portions from 2 Nephi 4 through Enos 1, Alma 10–13, Helaman 13 through 3 Nephi 4, and Ether 3–15. All of these other fragments are in Oliver’s hand.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/3-oliver-cowdery-book-mormon-scribe

I find Cowdery much more liely to have known of Roman warfare than Emma (or Martin Harris) but are there any indications from Cowdery that he inserted his own knowledge into the Book of Mormon dictation? Could he even have had tine to do so? The translation tine was at “lightning speed” if you will. I find it doubtful but this is interesting. 

[Darren10]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Jarman is not saying JS used all this stuff, but just used a manuscript which already was composed.  At least that is how I understand him.

I am still lost on how this theory is useful for explaining anything except maybe perceived parallels that if connected creates a very complicated path to get into JS's hands.

In what way does the theory answer any questions?

It is really just a history of Europe with madeup names and places that were imagined to be in North America, but all the author actually knew wasthe Nephites once existed and were destroyed and the rest of the history is just drawn from his studies and maybe the inspiration comes in with the doctrine or is that all borrowed and superimposed on the  Nephites as well?

-----

Whywould God use a fake history that were authored to impact a different people than where they actually ended up (as they would have no impact on people of your 17th century writer) with fake gold plates even to create a foundation for his Church?  Why not just stick with the Bible rather than jump through all those hoops to use a false and therefore weak foundation?

I’m confused as well as to just what Jarman is getting at. 

[Darren10]

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In fairness to OP, he hasn't once suggested that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in Harmony. He is exploring other explanations.

For example, JarMan did mention Joseph's great uncle Dr. John Smith, who was an Arminian theologian at Dartmouth, and was also one of the leading Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabic and Aramaic linguists in New England. Not only did Uncle John, as the Dartmouth librarian, have access to all the sophisticated materials in the Dartmouth library, but he also ran a bookshop. I'd guess he had read Josephus and Grotius and a number of other classics.

He also wrote a series of lectures on geography, natural philosophy and Newtonian astronomy, along with the entire curriculum for Dartmouth. 

Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding both took their ideas for their books about Jews in America from Dr. John Smith, so its not such a far out idea to mention his name in the context of BOM authorship/translation.

Edit: for the record, I agree with JarMan that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. But I don't believe Joseph Smith Jr. to be the author, or sole translator.

I mentioned Harmony since that was where translation began (from my understanding). I still do not know what JarMan is proposing. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. 

So you are arguing that the unnamed quasi-mythical figure who wrote the Book of Mormon in the 17th Century had access to the Roman account (admittedly plausible) and used it as a reference when writing up the Book of Mormon?

And you are suggesting that this somehow supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon account?

To which I can only say: What?

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Jarman is not saying JS used all this stuff, but just used a manuscript which already was composed.  At least that is how I understand him.

I am still lost on how this theory is useful for explaining anything except maybe perceived parallels that if connected creates a very complicated path to get into JS's hands.

In what way does the theory answer any questions?

If I follow.....It is really just a history of Europe with madeup names and places that were imagined to be in North America, but all the author actually knew wasthe Nephites once existed and were destroyed and the rest of the history is just drawn from his studies and maybe the inspiration comes in with the doctrine or is that all borrowed and superimposed on the  Nephites as well?

-----

Whywould God use a fake history that were authored to impact a different people than where they actually ended up (as they would have no impact on people of your 17th century writer) with fake gold plates even to create a foundation for his Church?  Why not just stick with the Bible rather than jump through all those hoops to use a false and therefore weak foundation?

I think this theory brings the book of mormon composition closer to the 19th century where it belongs.  If one believes God would use fake history to create a religious text, why not just do so in the 19th century?

[Rajah Manchou]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are arguing that the unnamed quasi-mythical figure who wrote the Book of Mormon in the 17th Century had access to the Roman account (admittedly plausible) and used it as a reference when writing up the Book of Mormon?

And you are suggesting that this somehow supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon account?

To which I can only say: What?

There are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon that date it to a period of time between the 16th century and the 19th century.

If the Book of Mormon account is historical, that has to be explained, somehow.

Besides, Moroni was a resurrected being, he had a good 1400 years to work on the translation before he placed the plates, and all that was needed for translating them, in the hill.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. 

It seems to me what you're doing is making a burden of proof argument. I've found some parallels therefore it's your the believer in historicity's job to prove they aren't unusual. My point was that normally in making an argument one has to engage with a null hypothesis. That is it's the burden of the person making the claim to show there's statistical significance. 

Reality is that I'm swamped the next while so trying to go through guerrilla warfare accounts isn't apt to be something I'll have time for. I can but point out that I'd be skeptical until such a survey is conducted. However as I said, merely looking at the list you gave above most of those elements can be found in the Spanish campaign during the Napoleonic wars. That's just with a superficial look admittedly.

Edited January 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon that date it to a period of time between the 16th century and the 19th century.

If the Book of Mormon account is historical, that has to be explained, somehow.

Besides, Moroni was a resurrected being, he had a good 1400 years to work on the translation before he placed the plates, and all that was needed for translating them, in the hill.

So Moroni was living in the Netherlands referencing accounts of Roman battles to help him describe Nephite battles when he translated the Book of Mormon? This somehow shows that the Book of Mormon is accurate because it has parallels?

Is this whole thing some elaborate hyperbolic troll done in revenge against our critics for the old Spaulding authorship claims? If so, I fully support this plan. If not, you are all a little nuts.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is this whole thing some elaborate hyperbolic troll done in revenge against our critics for the old Spaulding authorship claims? If so, I fully support this plan. If not, you are all a little nuts.

The latter

[Darren10]

54 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon that date it to a period of time between the 16th century and the 19th century.

If the Book of Mormon account is historical, that has to be explained, somehow.

Besides, Moroni was a resurrected being, he had a good 1400 years to work on the translation before he placed the plates, and all that was needed for translating them, in the hill.

Moroni worked on the plates after he was resurrected? This would mean he worked on them after he died. This is one of the weirdest proposals I’ve ever encountered. There is some things interesting but overall confusing and extremely weird. I know scholars role in the weird to make new discoveries but working on actual tangible records after death? Or would that be a a resulting theory if a connectiong between Joseph Smith (his translating process) and a 17th century Dutchman are made. Is this supposedly buliding off of Carmack’s Early English findings? 

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Jarman is not saying JS used all this stuff, but just used a manuscript which already was composed.  At least that is how I understand him.

I am still lost on how this theory is useful for explaining anything except maybe perceived parallels that if connected creates a very complicated path to get into JS's hands.

In what way does the theory answer any questions?

If I follow.....It is really just a history of Europe with madeup names and places that were imagined to be in North America, but all the author actually knew wasthe Nephites once existed and were destroyed and the rest of the history is just drawn from his studies and maybe the inspiration comes in with the doctrine or is that all borrowed and superimposed on the  Nephites as well?

-----

Whywould God use a fake history that were authored to impact a different people than where they actually ended up (as they would have no impact on people of your 17th century writer) with fake gold plates even to create a foundation for his Church?  Why not just stick with the Bible rather than jump through all those hoops to use a false and therefore weak foundation?

My model explains why the original text of the Book of Mormon is in Early Modern English. (People want to ignore this, but Skousen's and Carmack's work are clear, empirical evidence.) It also explains why the KJB is so pervasive in the text (because it was actually used in the original 17th Century production). It explains why there are anachronisms in the text like deutero-Isaiah and other biblical references that don't belong. It explains why the Book of Mormon people don't think or act like ancient Jewish people, but rather like 17th Century Europeans. It explains why the doctrine of the Book of Mormon (major parts of which were quickly abandoned by Joseph Smith) is Arminian and not "Mormon." It explains the clear presence of Erastian prototypical kings in Benjamin and Mosiah and also the presence of the Erastian anti-type with Noah. It explains the presence of robbers and secret combinations that very closely resemble those that existed in the ancient Roman Empire. It explains why there is a consistent, systematic doctrine in the Book of Mormon that stays unchanged for a period of a thousand years when, in the real world, these things always evolve over time. It explains why the practice of burning heretics (including several pertinent details) is in the Book of Mormon, when this is a practice that (throughout world history) exclusively took place in Eurasia between about 1100 AD and the beginning of the 17th Century. It explains why the Nephite government during the time of the judges closely resembles the government of the Netherland in the 17th Century. It explains the ongoing contention in the Book of Mormon between the Nephites and the Zoramites (this is closely related to the contention between the Calvinists and Arminians in the early 1600's). It explains who the great and abominable church is (from a 17th Century Protestant perspective this would obviously be the Catholic Church). It explains what the plain and precious truths are that were taken from the bible (things that were changed or lost through the process of translation plus entire books like the Book(s) of Enoch). It explains why meso-America is such a good fit for Book of Mormon geography. It explains why some of the cultural aspects of Book of Mormon people seem to be related to meso-America. It explains why a heliocentric view of the heavens is relevant in the text (this was during the time of Galileo). It explains why two great civilizations were eventually extinguished from the effects of prolonged war (the 30 Years War occurring at the time was the deadliest war in human history up to that point). With the exception of the prophecies regarding Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, I simply cannot find anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts my model.

I don't consider the Book of Mormon under this model to be fake history. There really were great civilizations in the Americas. They really did get wiped out through wars because of their unrighteousness. They really were visited by the resurrected Christ. They really did alternate between periods of righteousness and wickedness. There really were prophets who came among them who were rejected and cast out. There really were miraculous events that happened to the righteous. There really were events of mass destruction that wiped out wicked people. And there really were records that preserved their history. It's just that what we have as the Book of Mormon is an expansion on these themes as produced by a 17th Century prophet in Europe. Think of it as a super-expansionist model moved across the ocean and forward in time by 200 years.

[JarMan]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So Moroni was living in the Netherlands referencing accounts of Roman battles to help him describe Nephite battles when he translated the Book of Mormon? This somehow shows that the Book of Mormon is accurate because it has parallels?

My model does not involve a resurrected Moroni working on the translation. My model has the original being written in Latin by a close associate of Grotius some time between 1620 and 1660 and then translated into English soon thereafter.

59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is this whole thing some elaborate hyperbolic troll done in revenge against our critics for the old Spaulding authorship claims? If so, I fully support this plan. If not, you are all a little nuts.

You can think of it in this way if you want to. I wholeheartedly reject a 19th Century production of the Book of Mormon. If my hypothesis ends up being false, at least it demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of the Spaulding theory, the Joseph-made-it-up theory, the View of the Hebrews theory, or whatever other pet 19th Century theories are out there.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me what you're doing is making a burden of proof argument. I've found some parallels therefore it's your the believer in historicity's job to prove they aren't unusual. My point was that normally in making an argument one has to engage with a null hypothesis. That is it's the burden of the person making the claim to show there's statistical significance. 

Reality is that I'm swamped the next while so trying to go through guerrilla warfare accounts isn't apt to be something I'll have time for. I can but point out that I'd be skeptical until such a survey is conducted. However as I said, merely looking at the list you gave above most of those elements can be found in the Spanish campaign during the Napoleonic wars. That's just with a superficial look admittedly.

I understand you may not have time to do what I'm asking. But I hope you do have time to do some research on Tacfarinas. If anything just read the Wikipedia page. The parallels I've brought up are specific and numerous and simply cannot be dismissed as general parallels. If anything, I think I have understated their significance. If the shoe were on the other foot and the traditional apologist had this strong of a correlation, it would be published in every Mormon journal.

[clarkgoble]

For the record I think many of the apologist uses of parallels also don't deal well with the idea of a null hypothesis. Indeed I think it a problem of citing parallels in general.

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I’m confused as well as to just what Jarman is getting at. 

I don't want to start from scratch if I don't have to. Try re-reading my previous posts and see if what I am proposing makes sense. If not, I'm happy to fill in the details where you might have questions.

[JarMan]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For the record I think many of the apologist uses of parallels also don't deal well with the idea of a null hypothesis. Indeed I think it a problem of citing parallels in general.

Agreed. And agreed.

What you have called the null hypothesis I have described as a "baseline." It's quite an arduous process, however, to develop a good baseline, and like you I don't have the time for that kind of endeavor.

[cinepro]

23 hours 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.

When I was young, one of the most convincing evidences of the Book of Mormon to me was that there was no way anyone, let alone Joseph Smith, could be creative enough to come up with a book like that.

But if apologists have taught me anything, it is that I have severely underestimated the human capacity for creativity.

[Rajah Manchou]

27 minutes ago, JarMan said:

My model does not involve a resurrected Moroni working on the translation. 

Does your model involve a resurrected Moroni?

Edited January 2, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Does you model involve a resurrected Moroni?

My model has the "original" Book of Mormon being written in Latin by an associate of Grotius some time between 1620 and 1660. It is then subsequently translated into English by a different (mortal) person. Presumably a contemporary English man.

Where the resurrected Moroni may or may not come into play is in leading Joseph to the gold plates. This angel could be "Moroni" meaning an actual resurrected being from the American continent who kept records. Or it could be a resurrected being from 17th Century Europe that was either the original composer or the translator.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, JarMan said:

My model does not involve a resurrected Moroni working on the translation. My model has the original being written in Latin by a close associate of Grotius some time between 1620 and 1660 and then translated into English soon thereafter.

You can think of it in this way if you want to. I wholeheartedly reject a 19th Century production of the Book of Mormon. If my hypothesis ends up being false, at least it demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of the Spaulding theory, the Joseph-made-it-up theory, the View of the Hebrews theory, or whatever other pet 19th Century theories are out there.

So, let me see if I follow you?

A 17th century Dutch prophet, well read in Roman military history, receives a vision or revelation of the Lehite civilizations. He filters it through his worldview and writes it in Latin and translates it into English. He decides to write himself in as several of the characters (Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, Moroni, etc). This is lost. He shares it with no one and it helps no one at the time except maybe the author.

The angel Moroni gives the plates to Joseph (did the Dutch guy ever have the plates?) and God by revelation gives Joseph the Dutch prophet’s English translation as he translates.

Joseph is either not told about this or was told and told no one else. Joseph does minor changes to the Book of Mormon text without the Dutch prophet’s permission. I am going to call him Lucas just to keep it simple.

So why was Lucas needed? If God wanted a translation done why pick Lucas to do it when he is several centuries removed? If he did have the right credentials would it not make sense for him to do this after he was dead?

Also do we need to replace Smithmas with Lucasmas to honor him?

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by The Nehor