JarMan Posted January 9, 2025 Author Posted January 9, 2025 34 minutes ago, webbles said: Ammonihah was not fortified with wooden walls. It states that it was a ridge of earth (Alma 49:4). As shown with the Nervii, building earthworks without proper iron tools can still be done extremely fast. Alma 49:13 does talk about fortifying the cities but then in Alma 49:18 it talks about how the Lamanites can't get into one of these forts because of the high earth bank and deep ditch. So no wooden walls mentioned. It isn't till Alma 50:2 that it mentions putting a wooden palisade on top of the ridges of earth. I'm trying to find reputable sources that talk about how fast stone age technology can do wood work. So far, I've either found things that are behind a paywall, reddit discussions, youtube videos, etc. But so far, all of those give the impression that stone age tools absolutely can build a palisade in the time we are talking about. Do you have sources that show it is impossible? And wooden towers are not needed. They could have created mounds of earth as a tower. The palisade is only to the "height of the man". The pickets wouldn't make it much higher. Building next to large cities will definitely deplete the forests. But most cities are not that large. For the Nephites, we are talking about much, much smaller cities. They would not need to transport wood for 1,000 miles. They would not deplete the forests around them. I agree that the Roman empire used timber more than stone age tools could handle. But the Nephites are not the Romans. They don't use timber near the amount that the Romans did. The Roman legions built a wooden fort every single night when they were on a campaign. There is no indication of that in the Book of Mormon. The Nephites used wood for their city fortifications. They weren't trying to build a wooden palisade in a few days. They had months, if not years to do it. Look what was accomplished in just the 19th year. They started fortifying all the cities that hadn't been previously fortified. They built a line of fortifications on their southern border. They also began to build the cities of Moroni, Nephihah, Lehi and many cities to the north. This was all done in one year. The kind of towers mentioned aren't made from dirt. For one, they would have to have been made in a pyramid shape meaning that they wouldn't be able to attack the enemies at the base of the wall. Secondly, it's just not efficient. Third, you'd probably have to transport the dirt from outside the city which adds an additional layer of labor. I don't know of any ancient cities that constructed earth mounds inside the perimeter of its walls.
JarMan Posted January 9, 2025 Author Posted January 9, 2025 On 1/8/2025 at 9:20 AM, webbles said: I'm having a hard time seeing how Moroni's letter is clearly taken from Pompey's letter. Yes, they both talk about war. And yes they both talk about provisioning issues. But Pompey is complaining about needing to use his own funds and means to pay for his troops; Moroni doesn't mention that. Pompey talks about all of his conquests as reasons why he should be supported; Moroni doesn't do that. Moroni talks a lot about how how Pahoran should be building armies and sending them against the enemy; Pompey doesn't mention that. Moroni talks about commandments, God, etc; Pompey doesn't mention that. Where do you see Nephites acting like iron age society (besides the timber working which is already discussed)? And West Side story isn't based on Romeo and Juliet because, you know, early modern Italy isn't 20th Century New York. I think you need to take a closer look at Pompey's letter. Pompey sent a scathing letter to the Senate, accusing them of neglecting the war effort. His soldiers were dying and starving, and his army was badly in need of reinforcements. If the Senate continued their neglect, Pompey concluded he would have no choice but to march his army back to Rome to punish those who should be helping and to secure the necessary provisions and troops. This is, in essence, the same message as Moroni's letter. I'm angry because you have neglected us. We're dying. We're starving. If you don't provide reinforcements and food, I'm turning this army around and marching back to the capitol to take these things by force. But it's not just the letter itself, the context of both letters is also very similar. We have Moroni, appointed commander at the age of 25 and Pompey, who became the de facto military leader of Rome at age 25. Then we have the enemy Pompey was fighting, named Sertorius. Who was Sertorius? He was a Roman officer leading an army of Romans and non-Romans. And why was he fighting against his own country? Because previously he had been part of a faction that wanted to change the Roman constitution to strip power away from the Senate. This faction had the support of many of the Tribunes of the Plebs, which was essentially the lower house of the Roman government. He was driven from Rome a few years earlier and was eventually able to gain control of the government and army in Iberia. Sounds a lot like Amalickiah, who united with the lower judges to try and change the Nephite Constitution and set him up as king. But then he was driven out of Zarahemla, only to eventually gain control of the Lamanite government and army. Both the Romans and Nephites fought a drawn out war against these seditionists that was essentially a stalemate. It wasn't until Sertorius and Amalickiah's successor Ammoron were assassinated that the tide turned. Pompey and Moroni immediately took advantage of the opposing leader's death and defeated their adversaries in a final battle.
JarMan Posted January 9, 2025 Author Posted January 9, 2025 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: In looking back, a little bit, I perhaps exaggerated the length of time - it hasn't been decades. But it was back around 2017 (which has been almost 8 years now) when you started discussing Grotius. I'll try not to be condescending. Perhaps we can start with one specific issue. You wrote in the OP: Is this a suggestion of plagiarism? This is a really important point to be clear about because it raises a different set of issues depending on how you answer this question. 1: If the answer to this question is that it isn't plagiarism from a specific source, then my earlier observation is important - why do you think that the ordering of the textual elements is meaningful? I will be the first to agree that ordering can be meaningful when discussing intertextual relationships (and I have discussed this at some length in a couple of my publications) - but that generally means movement from one specific text to another. 2: If it is an argument for plagiarism, it runs into a problem of uniqueness. That problem of uniqueness comes in more than one flavor: 2A: Can we find this same set of textual elements (in this same order) in multiple texts - and subsequently, how do you determine that Text A plagiarizes Text B and Not Texts C, D, E, etc. Can we find a similar set of textual elements that meet the same ordering criteria that overlaps this one (with the same outcome)? 2B: Are the elements unique within the source text that you provide? That is, if Text A (the Book of Mormon here) deals with military fortifications in other passages that don't contain the same ordering, then the argument for the ordering in the Book of Mormon text is greatly weakened (see for example Alma 48:8; 49:1, 4, 18-22; 53:3-4). The same is true for Text B - if we can find these same elements scattered throughout Text B (the Caesar text) in a variety of different orderings, then the case for plagiarism is also greatly weakened. To put it in different terms, if both texts are dealing with the same sort of content (thematically - in this case, warfare and its accompanying fortifications) then we would expect to see a significant overlap - especially if the texts are produced relatively contemporaneously. Does your search for parallels simply come from looking for the place where the largest number of these related textual elements occur in roughly the same order? 2C: How does your discussion account for the significant differences between the texts. These differences aren't just limited to the narrow context you offer where the similarities seem to be strongest. Some of this notion is embedded in the challenge to the notion of this as a Romanism. How would you define that term, and what makes this passage of the translation of the Caesar text an example of a Romanism? What are the features of the Book of Mormon text that align to that definition of a Romanism? And further, if the Book of Mormon is trying to use the Romanisms that are found in the Caesar text, is this a pattern in the Book of Mormon, and if not, how do we explain the differences (the non-Romanisms) that we find. 2D: Finally, William Duncan published his translation of the Caesar text in 1753. When we are dealing with language features in texts, and the language is similar but not identical, there are some additional concerns. These military ideas are fairly common in the milieu in which both the translation of the Caesar text and the Book of Mormon are published. What I mean by that is that earthen ridges, towers, and wooden palisades and the like are features of 18th and 19th century military structures and defenses. Does contemporary usage influence both of these publications to use this similar language so that they both participate in a textual tradition instead of having some sort of genealogical connection? My comments here are deliberately avoiding the question of whether or not the parallels themselves are valid (that's a different issue) and are focusing instead on the notion of a negative check - how would you prove/disprove this suggestion at a methodological or procedural level. I started mentioning Grotius around 2017 or 2018, but I held to a hypothesis that still made the Book of Mormon inspired scripture from God. My research changed my mind by about 2020, at which time I went from a lifelong, faithful member to a non-believer. I mention this to point out that new information can cause me to radically change my views. As you may remember, my hypothesis is that Grotius wrote the Book of Mormon between about 1635 and 1645. Grotius was very familiar with Roman historiography and was a historian in his own right. I think he drew on many ancient sources--some generally, like Virgil and Homer--but others much more specifically like Tacitus, Sallust, and Julius Caesar. For the passages in the OP I think he took this directly from Caesar. I suppose you could call it plagiarism, but the modern concept of plagiarism seems to be a bit anachronistic for the 17th Century. I identify other Romanisms (or maybe you would call it plagiarism--you tell me what the difference is) in a Sunstone presentation from 2019 or 2020. Links: https://youtu.be/W38kfT8eYPo , https://youtu.be/6aDQ-wjpTcE , https://youtu.be/M7-emC13ZlI My negative check is whether something would likely have been known by the proposed author. I don't think of this as a bright line yes/no, but as a gradient of likelihood. If I applied the passage from the OP to Joseph Smith as a proposed author, for example, I would say it doesn't come anywhere close to ruling him out. The passage is concise and could easily have been available to him. This isn't to say he is the author. Only that he is in the universe of possible authors based on this single example. As is Grotius. The Tacitean elements related to Tacfarinas as a Gadianton Robber (second link above), however, would be harder (but not impossible) to attribute to Joseph Smith since they are sprinkled through a long narrative and take some sleuthing to stitch together into a continuous story. It's much more likely this could have been done by a scholar like Grotius. When you have a large enough sample size of elements in the text you can look at them in their entirety to see qualitatively how likely they all are together for a particular proposed author as compared to another. If a proposed author has several very unlikely matches they can probably be ruled out. As a silly example, I could rule out Calvin as the author based on several theological discrepancies.
Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted January 9, 2025 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2025 5 minutes ago, JarMan said: And West Side story isn't based on Romeo and Juliet because, you know, early modern Italy isn't 20th Century New York. I think you need to take a closer look at Pompey's letter. This isn't a good analogy. We know that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet because we have a great deal of documentation about the relationship that is external to the script. It is something else entirely to assert that the Book of Mormon text was influenced by Pompey's letter. As I noted briefly earlier, one of the things that has to be done to make this sort of assertion is to show that the connection between the two has some sort of uniqueness. There is something else here too - and that is that the context of such a letter isn't itself a purely fictional thing. We can find all sorts of military forces in history that were not being properly supported by their governments. There was a similar letter written in 2023 by Yevgeny Prigozhin to Putin. This didn't end up to be an idle threat - Wagner forces marched on Moscow. These kinds of historical contexts create the need for greater scrutiny when claiming this sort of literary reliance because it is difficult to show that a text like Pompey's letter would necessarily be the source of this text in the Book of Mormon. That is all true, of course, if the texts had a strong similarity. But, that becomes questionable when you actually read the letter. Here is Thomas Gordon's translation (1744): Quote POMPEY’s LETTER TO THE SENATE. This Letter of Pompey’s was sent from Spain, where he commanded against a very formidable Enemy, the famous Sertorius, a great and able Man, under Proscription, and many Disadvantages, yet long a Terror and Scourge to the Roman Armies sent against him, even under Pompey and Metellus: Nor was he subdued at last by Force, but by the Treachery of one of his own Officers, a vain Man, ambitious of being in his Place, which he was very unable to hold. HAD I, with infinite Peril and Toil, manifested my Enmity to You, to my Country, and her Gods; as often as I have by a successful Conduct, from my early Youth, subdued your most inveterate Enemies, and rescued you from Destruction; you could not, Conscript Fathers, have entered into any Resolutions against me, in my Absence, more severe than the Difficulties to which you have now reduced me; exposed as I was, at an Age unripe for such a Service, to the Rage and Fury of a most formidable and bloody War; and now perishing with a whole Army of brave and deserving Men, perishing with Hunger, (of all kinds of Death the most grievous) without any Endeavours on your Part to relieve us. Was it for this the People of Rome sent out their Children to Battle? Are these the Recompences for all their Wounds, and Contusions, and the Streams of Blood they have shed in Defence of the Republic? Tired out with sending unsuccessful Legates, and fruitless Petitions, I have utterly exhausted all my own private Fortune, and, with that, even all my Hopes and Expectations: And, in the Space of Three whole Years, I have scarce been allowed the Subsistance necessary for One. In the Name of the immortal Gods, do you imagine, that my private Fortune is equal to a public Treasury? Or that I am able to keep up, and maintain, an Army without any Allowance of Provisions or Pay? I must confess, indeed, that, when I undertook this Expedition, I was prompted more by Inclination than by Judgment. For when you had conferred upon me a bare Command, unsupported by any Supplies of Money, in Forty Days I raised an Army. And when the Enemy was then pressing upon the Frontiers of Italy, I instantly dislodged them, drove them from the Alps into Spain, and opened a Passage over those Mountains, far more commodious for us than that through which Hannibal penetrated. Then I reduced Gaul to your Obedience, the Pyreneum, Laletania, and Ilergetum. And when that victorious Commander Sertorius advanced against me, I sustained the Onset with Troops unexperienced in War, and much inferior in Number to the Enemy. Nor did I ever repair to Towns for my Winter Quarters, to gratify a Passion for Popularity; but encamped in the Field, surrounded on all Sides by desperate and bloody Enemies.—Have I any Occasion to recount the Battles I have fought?—All my Winter Marches?—All the Cities I have razed, or those I have reduced to Obedience?—No!—Actions shew themselves to more Advantage, than any Eloquence can set them forth. That I forced the Enemies Camp at Sucro—How successful I fought at the River Durius—That I defeated Herennius the Enemies General, routed his whole Army, and razed the City Valentia to the Ground—These are Facts well known to you all, and need no Illustration. And, for all these Services, You, O grateful Fathers, recompense me with Distresses, with Hunger, and Famine! Thus, by your Neglect, am I reduced to the same Exigencies with the Enemy: Both of us utterly destitute of Subsistence. It is in the Power of either Army, to march into Italy without Opposition. Let me therefore exhort you, let me beseech you, Fathers, to call up all your Attention; and compel me not, by the Extremity of Difficulties, to provide for my own Safety without the Sanction of your Authority. As for the Hither Spain, not in Possession of the Enemy, it is a Scene of Desolation, plundered, pillaged, and utterly despoiled by myself and Sertorius: The Cities, indeed, upon the Sea Coast, have yet escaped; but they are rather a Burden and Charge, than any Support to me. As for Gaul, that Country was utterly exhausted last Year, by the Supplies drained from thence, for the Support of Metellus’s Army: And this Year the Harvest has failed, and scarce yields the Inhabitants sufficient Provisions for the Support of Life. As for myself, not only my own private Fortune is entirely consumed, but, with That, my Credit too is exhausted. You, Conscript Fathers, are my last Resort; and, if I am not relieved by you, it will not be in my Power to prevent that Misfortune, which I now forewarn you of; the Army will unavoidably march hence, and transfer the Scene of War into the very Bowels of your Country. And when we read this letter, it isn't really all that similar to the Book of Mormon letter at all. We could start with the obvious - Pompey isn't threatening to lead the army back - if the army isn't paid, he says they will come back on their own (and Pompey suggests that the two armies there will find nothing to stop them - his own and his enemy's). His mission wasn't one of defense but of conquest. Pompay has been paying the wages of the soldiers out of his own personal wealth - and these are paid soldiers. They are mercenaries. We shouldn't underemphasize this point because they are fighting for money - they are not fighting for the defense of their country and families (way over in Spain). We could make a long list of these differences. And perhaps just as importantly, there is nothing in these letters that comes remotely close to the response to Moroni's letter from Pahoran. So the argument doesn't seem to be very convincing. 6
morgan.deane Posted January 9, 2025 Posted January 9, 2025 3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: This isn't a good analogy. We know that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet because we have a great deal of documentation about the relationship that is external to the script. It is something else entirely to assert that the Book of Mormon text was influenced by Pompey's letter. As I noted briefly earlier, one of the things that has to be done to make this sort of assertion is to show that the connection between the two has some sort of uniqueness. There is something else here too - and that is that the context of such a letter isn't itself a purely fictional thing. We can find all sorts of military forces in history that were not being properly supported by their governments. There was a similar letter written in 2023 by Yevgeny Prigozhin to Putin. This didn't end up to be an idle threat - Wagner forces marched on Moscow. These kinds of historical contexts create the need for greater scrutiny when claiming this sort of literary reliance because it is difficult to show that a text like Pompey's letter would necessarily be the source of this text in the Book of Mormon. That is all true, of course, if the texts had a strong similarity. But, that becomes questionable when you actually read the letter. Here is Thomas Gordon's translation (1744): And when we read this letter, it isn't really all that similar to the Book of Mormon letter at all. We could start with the obvious - Pompey isn't threatening to lead the army back - if the army isn't paid, he says they will come back on their own (and Pompey suggests that the two armies there will find nothing to stop them - his own and his enemy's). His mission wasn't one of defense but of conquest. Pompay has been paying the wages of the soldiers out of his own personal wealth - and these are paid soldiers. They are mercenaries. We shouldn't underemphasize this point because they are fighting for money - they are not fighting for the defense of their country and families (way over in Spain). We could make a long list of these differences. And perhaps just as importantly, there is nothing in these letters that comes remotely close to the response to Moroni's letter from Pahoran. So the argument doesn't seem to be very convincing. I was going to make similar points about how many leaders throughout history have complained to their governments, and the many differences between the letters but I don't have the patience you do. I would add, however, that my recent article suggests the letter provides quite a few hints about the debates going on in Nephite society, none of which are showed in Pompey's letter. https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-unwritten-debates-in-moroni1s-letter/ You brought up many more differences which are also valid and convincing. I'm glad someone has the patience to make these arguments. Good luck! 3
webbles Posted January 9, 2025 Posted January 9, 2025 1 hour ago, JarMan said: And West Side story isn't based on Romeo and Juliet because, you know, early modern Italy isn't 20th Century New York. I think you need to take a closer look at Pompey's letter. Pompey sent a scathing letter to the Senate, accusing them of neglecting the war effort. His soldiers were dying and starving, and his army was badly in need of reinforcements. If the Senate continued their neglect, Pompey concluded he would have no choice but to march his army back to Rome to punish those who should be helping and to secure the necessary provisions and troops. This is, in essence, the same message as Moroni's letter. I'm angry because you have neglected us. We're dying. We're starving. If you don't provide reinforcements and food, I'm turning this army around and marching back to the capitol to take these things by force. But it's not just the letter itself, the context of both letters is also very similar. We have Moroni, appointed commander at the age of 25 and Pompey, who became the de facto military leader of Rome at age 25. Then we have the enemy Pompey was fighting, named Sertorius. Who was Sertorius? He was a Roman officer leading an army of Romans and non-Romans. And why was he fighting against his own country? Because previously he had been part of a faction that wanted to change the Roman constitution to strip power away from the Senate. This faction had the support of many of the Tribunes of the Plebs, which was essentially the lower house of the Roman government. He was driven from Rome a few years earlier and was eventually able to gain control of the government and army in Iberia. Sounds a lot like Amalickiah, who united with the lower judges to try and change the Nephite Constitution and set him up as king. But then he was driven out of Zarahemla, only to eventually gain control of the Lamanite government and army. Both the Romans and Nephites fought a drawn out war against these seditionists that was essentially a stalemate. It wasn't until Sertorius and Amalickiah's successor Ammoron were assassinated that the tide turned. Pompey and Moroni immediately took advantage of the opposing leader's death and defeated their adversaries in a final battle. As Benjamin pointed out, Pompey isn't threatening to attack Rome. He is just threatening to go home and stop fighting Sertorius. See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html#20. One of the consuls at the time, Lucullus, didn't want Pompey to come back because Pompey might be able to get the proconsul to fight the 3rd Mithridatic war. Lucullus wanted that position as it would give him lots of money and glory. So Lucullus pushed to give the food and money that Pompey wanted. Sertorius wasn't trying to change the Roman constitution. The original issue was what to do with the new Roman citizens that had been created at the end of the Social Wars. One side (optimates) wanted to put all of the new citizens in a few of the Roman tribes while another side (populares) wanted to put equal amounts in all of the Roman tribes. The main voting body in the Roman Republic was the tribal assembly and it voted usually by tribe. The optimates wanted just a few tribes to get all of these new voters because then the untouched tribes would still be controlled by them. The populares wanted all tribes to get the new voters so that they could control them. One of the Tribune of the Plebs (these are not the lower house of the Roman government but are instead about 10-15 men), Sulpicius (a populares), made a deal with Marius and other optimates to pass a piece of legislature that would spread out the new Roman citizens as well as improve some situations for optimates. Most of the Senate didn't like it but they have no voting power against it. The two consuls (Sulla and Quintus Pompeius Rufus) also didn't like it and they imposed a pause on the voting (which was in their power). Sulpicius and his followers then began to harass the two consuls to get them to remove their pause (this harassment was not normal) and apparently Sulla was forced to remove the pause and flee the city. He now had limited political power (though he was still a consul) so he planned to fight the 1st Mithraditic War and regain power and prestige. But unknown to him, the deal between Sulpicius and Marius gave Marius the command in the 1st Mithraditic War. And Sulla was not happy. He marched his army on Rome. This is the first time a Roman army ever marched on Rome. Almost all of his commanders deserted him because of this treason. His reason to march on Rome isn't to fix a broken system. It is because his ability to get more money was taken away from him. Rome had no defending army and so Sulla quickly took the city. He changed the Roman government. He made it so that the Senate had control over laws, where previously it was the tribal assembly. After making other drastic changes to the constitution to prevent losing power, he then left for the Mithradic War (because he wanted money). While he has gone, the Marians retook power and undid a lot of his changes. They also sent an army to stop Sulla and replace him as commander (it failed). Once Sulla once the Mithradic War, he came back. As soon as he entered Roman soil, many supporters flocked to him. The Marians had reduced their power and they wanted it back. In this group was Pompey. When Sulla defeated the Marians and took over Rome, he forced the Senate to appoint him as Dictator, which is an old Roman position that hadn't been used in over 100 years and Sulla misused it. TLDR; It is Sulla who is more like Amalakiah. And Pompey was his supporter. They were the ones that changed the Roman government to ensure that they could stay in power. 2
webbles Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 6 hours ago, JarMan said: Look what was accomplished in just the 19th year. They started fortifying all the cities that hadn't been previously fortified. They built a line of fortifications on their southern border. They also began to build the cities of Moroni, Nephihah, Lehi and many cities to the north. This was all done in one year. I think you mean the 20th year (Alma 50)? But yes, they started doing that. It doesn't say the finished doing that in one year. They could have taken up to 5 years to get all of that done because that is the next time we see the fortifications being mentioned. Also, it is possible that they still weren't done after 5 years. There is no mention of when they are done. 6 hours ago, JarMan said: The kind of towers mentioned aren't made from dirt. For one, they would have to have been made in a pyramid shape meaning that they wouldn't be able to attack the enemies at the base of the wall. Secondly, it's just not efficient. Third, you'd probably have to transport the dirt from outside the city which adds an additional layer of labor. I don't know of any ancient cities that constructed earth mounds inside the perimeter of its walls. Why are the kind of towers mentioned aren't made from dirt? Where does it say that? Just because it isn't efficient doesn't mean it could have been done. From the Book of Mormon, this sounds like new fortification technology and new technology usually isn't that efficient. But it also wouldn't be a pyramid. It would just be a pile of dirt up against the palisade. They only need to create an elevation of about 4-5 feet so that someone could stand on it and look over the palisade. You seem to be thinking of really complex fortifications such as Roman ones but theirs is based on much older style of fortifications which would have been much simpler, but still similar (rampart, wall, ditch, etc). So Moroni is building the simpler version. 2
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 7 hours ago, JarMan said: And West Side story isn't based on Romeo and Juliet because, you know, early modern Italy isn't 20th Century New York. I think you need to take a closer look at Pompey's letter. Pompey sent a scathing letter to the Senate, accusing them of neglecting the war effort. His soldiers were dying and starving, and his army was badly in need of reinforcements. If the Senate continued their neglect, Pompey concluded he would have no choice but to march his army back to Rome to punish those who should be helping and to secure the necessary provisions and troops. That is not what happened. Pompey threatened to disband the army. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: This is, in essence, the same message as Moroni's letter. I'm angry because you have neglected us. We're dying. We're starving. If you don't provide reinforcements and food, I'm turning this army around and marching back to the capitol to take these things by force. Not even close. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: But it's not just the letter itself, the context of both letters is also very similar. We have Moroni, appointed commander at the age of 25 and Pompey, who became the de facto military leader of Rome at age 25. Then we have the enemy Pompey was fighting, named Sertorius. Who was Sertorius? He was a Roman officer leading an army of Romans and non-Romans. And why was he fighting against his own country? Because previously he had been part of a faction that wanted to change the Roman constitution to strip power away from the Senate. No, Sertorius was fighting Sulla who had basically disenfranchised/murdered a large portion of the Senate. We can’t know for sure what goal Sertorius had but it could just as easily have been to restore the pre-Sulla constitution. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: This faction had the support of many of the Tribunes of the Plebs, which was essentially the lower house of the Roman government. He was driven from Rome a few years earlier and was eventually able to gain control of the government and army in Iberia. NO! The Tribunes were not a lower house in the Roman government. They were specific elected officials that executed veto power and could propose legislation to the Assemblies. They were created to give the plebeians some power since originally the patricians had exclusive access to the Senate. Later this became much less important and by the time in question wealthy plebeians were in the Senate and there were only a few powers the patricians had access to that plebeians did not. Most of them were religious functions. The tribunes were magistrates and not a deliberative body like the Senate. The Senate was not an upper house either. Although it was the most influential body in the Republic it had no formal power. It issued ‘advice’ to the magistrates. Said advice was basically always followed though until the civil war periods. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: Sounds a lot like Amalickiah, who united with the lower judges to try and change the Nephite Constitution and set him up as king. But then he was driven out of Zarahemla, only to eventually gain control of the Lamanite government and army. Nope. We have no reason to believe that Sertorius had the goal to exercise absolute power over Rome. Sertorius just went to the provinces. For this parallel to work Amalickiah would have had to stir up other Nephites to revolt. 7 hours ago, JarMan said: Both the Romans and Nephites fought a drawn out war against these seditionists that was essentially a stalemate. It wasn't until Sertorius and Amalickiah's successor Ammoron were assassinated that the tide turned. Pompey and Moroni immediately took advantage of the opposing leader's death and defeated their adversaries in a final battle. Sertorius was assassinated by his own people which doesn’t parallel this at all. Rome put a huge bounty on his head and made Sertorius, who according to our sources was a just and fair guy, into a paranoid wreck who kicked a lot of Romans out of his retinue fearing they would kill him for the money. This paranoia made him cruel and then conspirators used the resentment that stirred up to plan an assassination. Parallelomania is a hell of a drug but it has to be pretty blatant for this to be something that was copied into the Book of Mormon. A lot of wars have been fought and have involved assassinations. There is no reason to see these as connected in any way. 2
JarMan Posted January 10, 2025 Author Posted January 10, 2025 (edited) 8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: This isn't a good analogy. We know that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet because we have a great deal of documentation about the relationship that is external to the script. It is something else entirely to assert that the Book of Mormon text was influenced by Pompey's letter. As I noted briefly earlier, one of the things that has to be done to make this sort of assertion is to show that the connection between the two has some sort of uniqueness. There is something else here too - and that is that the context of such a letter isn't itself a purely fictional thing. We can find all sorts of military forces in history that were not being properly supported by their governments. There was a similar letter written in 2023 by Yevgeny Prigozhin to Putin. This didn't end up to be an idle threat - Wagner forces marched on Moscow. These kinds of historical contexts create the need for greater scrutiny when claiming this sort of literary reliance because it is difficult to show that a text like Pompey's letter would necessarily be the source of this text in the Book of Mormon. That is all true, of course, if the texts had a strong similarity. But, that becomes questionable when you actually read the letter. Here is Thomas Gordon's translation (1744): And when we read this letter, it isn't really all that similar to the Book of Mormon letter at all. We could start with the obvious - Pompey isn't threatening to lead the army back - if the army isn't paid, he says they will come back on their own (and Pompey suggests that the two armies there will find nothing to stop them - his own and his enemy's). His mission wasn't one of defense but of conquest. Pompay has been paying the wages of the soldiers out of his own personal wealth - and these are paid soldiers. They are mercenaries. We shouldn't underemphasize this point because they are fighting for money - they are not fighting for the defense of their country and families (way over in Spain). We could make a long list of these differences. And perhaps just as importantly, there is nothing in these letters that comes remotely close to the response to Moroni's letter from Pahoran. So the argument doesn't seem to be very convincing. According to many historians, Pompey is threatening to come back and take things by force, just like Moroni. This becomes obvious once you understand the context of Pompey's letter. In the previous decade, both Sulla and and Marius had done exactly that. They attacked the city, massacred their political opponents, and replaced the government. That is what Pompey was threatening. And Pompey's mission was not one of conquest. Rome controlled a province in Iberia until Sertorius usurped the leadership and took control. Pompey was thus fighting to regain Rome's province from a rebel and his army. And he didn't have an army of mercenaries, though he did have auxiliaries. Mainly, these were soldiers he inherited from his father's army. They were Roman citizens who believed they were protecting the empire. And of course there are differences in the stories. But it's in these differences that the author conveys some of the most important information. Pahoran's humble and exuberant reaction in the face of angry threats is one of those. This is how a real man, a righteous man, responds. Edited January 10, 2025 by JarMan
webbles Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 1 hour ago, JarMan said: According to many historians, Pompey is threatening to come back and take things by force, just like Moroni. This becomes obvious once you understand the context of Pompey's letter. In the previous decade, both Sulla and and Marius had done exactly that. They attacked the city, massacred their political opponents, and replaced the government. That is what Pompey was threatening. I'd love to see a historian who says that Pompey is threatening to come back and use force against Rome. Do you have any references? In Plutarch's history of both Pompey and Sertorius, he just says that Pompey was threatening to come home - https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Sertorius*.html#21 and https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html#20 1 hour ago, JarMan said: And Pompey's mission was not one of conquest. Rome controlled a province in Iberia until Sertorius usurped the leadership and took control. Pompey was thus fighting to regain Rome's province from a rebel and his army. And he didn't have an army of mercenaries, though he did have auxiliaries. Mainly, these were soldiers he inherited from his father's army. They were Roman citizens who believed they were protecting the empire. Romans don't inherit armies. That is not how Roman armies worked in the Republic. The ability to command an army (called imperium) was vested into a person by virtue of the Senate. The Senate would pick new people every single year. The highest position was consul and they were given command of the armies. There were only 2 of these and they had equal authority (they are kind of like co-kings since they had a lot of authority). The Senate could also pick proconsuls. These were former consuls that were needed to keep their command (because they were in the middle of a war that lasted longer than 1 year) or because Rome needed more armies. No one inherited this privilege. It was given to them by virtue of the Senate. When Sulla came back the second time to conquer Rome and change the government, Pompey joined him. He wasn't a consul or proconsul (as he was way too young) but he gathered men that had served under his father. He paid them out of his own pocket as this army was not a Roman army. It was his own personal army. He helped Sulla conquer Rome and change the government. He then helped Rome track down the legitimate governors of Roman provinces and attack them. So yes, Pompey was basically a mercenary. He didn't have official rights to command an army. When Sertorius started the revolt in Spain (which, by the way, was a revolt to restore the normal Roman government since Sulla was the usurper), the Senate sent Metellus as proconsul to deal with him. Metellus fought Sertorius for 3 years before the Senate decided to send Pompey. They finally gave him proconsul, but it was extremely controversial. Generally, a proconsul had to have been a consul first. Pompey hadn't been consul. He hadn't had any elected position either. So he shouldn't have been elected proconsul. But they did and now his army was legitimate. But he still mostly built it using his men from his previous mercenary army. By this time, his army is more in it for the money, and not in it for protecting the republic (there wasn't an empire yet). Sertorius' army, on the other hand, was trying to protect the republic. They had a more legitimate senate than Rome did. And they were battling against the usurper, Sulla. 1
JarMan Posted January 10, 2025 Author Posted January 10, 2025 17 minutes ago, webbles said: I'd love to see a historian who says that Pompey is threatening to come back and use force against Rome. Do you have any references? In Plutarch's history of both Pompey and Sertorius, he just says that Pompey was threatening to come home - https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Sertorius*.html#21 and https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html#20 Hugo Grotius believed Pompey was threatening to invade Rome. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A85748.0001.001/1:4?cite1=grotius;cite1restrict=authors;firstpubl1=1470;firstpubl2=1700;rgn=div1;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=pompey "but when by Ambition and Avarice the Sedition of the Apuleij and the Gracchi, and after them the warrs of Sylla and Marius crept in, the Repub∣lique of Rome began to look Monarchish: which as Jul. Caesar! invaded upon a Po∣pular Accompt: so would Pompey have probably done, upon the SENATES." As I said, the historical context makes this interpretation likely. 23 minutes ago, webbles said: Romans don't inherit armies. That is not how Roman armies worked in the Republic. The ability to command an army (called imperium) was vested into a person by virtue of the Senate. The Senate would pick new people every single year. The highest position was consul and they were given command of the armies. There were only 2 of these and they had equal authority (they are kind of like co-kings since they had a lot of authority). The Senate could also pick proconsuls. These were former consuls that were needed to keep their command (because they were in the middle of a war that lasted longer than 1 year) or because Rome needed more armies. No one inherited this privilege. It was given to them by virtue of the Senate. When Sulla came back the second time to conquer Rome and change the government, Pompey joined him. He wasn't a consul or proconsul (as he was way too young) but he gathered men that had served under his father. He paid them out of his own pocket as this army was not a Roman army. It was his own personal army. He helped Sulla conquer Rome and change the government. He then helped Rome track down the legitimate governors of Roman provinces and attack them. So yes, Pompey was basically a mercenary. He didn't have official rights to command an army. When Sertorius started the revolt in Spain (which, by the way, was a revolt to restore the normal Roman government since Sulla was the usurper), the Senate sent Metellus as proconsul to deal with him. Metellus fought Sertorius for 3 years before the Senate decided to send Pompey. They finally gave him proconsul, but it was extremely controversial. Generally, a proconsul had to have been a consul first. Pompey hadn't been consul. He hadn't had any elected position either. So he shouldn't have been elected proconsul. But they did and now his army was legitimate. But he still mostly built it using his men from his previous mercenary army. By this time, his army is more in it for the money, and not in it for protecting the republic (there wasn't an empire yet). Sertorius' army, on the other hand, was trying to protect the republic. They had a more legitimate senate than Rome did. And they were battling against the usurper, Sulla. Pompey inherited his father's money, which he used to raise an army composed largely of the men that had served under his father. Saying he "inherited an army" was just shorthand. This story involves two factions, so naturally there are two sides of the story. You're simply telling it from the Populares or Marian perspective. But others tell the same story from the Optimates or Sullan faction perspective. This is the perspective that we see similarities to in the Book of Mormon.
JarMan Posted January 10, 2025 Author Posted January 10, 2025 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: That is not what happened. Pompey threatened to disband the army. This is a modern interpretation of the letter. Most earlier interpretations don't see it that way. 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: That is not what happened. Pompey threatened to disband the army. Not even close. No, Sertorius was fighting Sulla who had basically disenfranchised/murdered a large portion of the Senate. We can’t know for sure what goal Sertorius had but it could just as easily have been to restore the pre-Sulla constitution. There were two main factions in this civil war (at least in the classical interpretation), the Populares who wanted reforms and the Optimates who wanted to preserve the constitution . Sulla and Pompey were Optimates while Sertorius was a Populare. 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: The Tribunes were not a lower house in the Roman government. They were specific elected officials that executed veto power and could propose legislation to the Assemblies. They were created to give the plebeians some power since originally the patricians had exclusive access to the Senate. Later this became much less important and by the time in question wealthy plebeians were in the Senate and there were only a few powers the patricians had access to that plebeians did not. Most of them were religious functions. The tribunes were magistrates and not a deliberative body like the Senate. The Senate was not an upper house either. Although it was the most influential body in the Republic it had no formal power. It issued ‘advice’ to the magistrates. Said advice was basically always followed though until the civil war periods. You're conflating republican-era government with the imperial era. The Senate in the republic had a lot of power and they were also an administrative branch. The point here, though, isn't to describe the exact nature of the government of Rome, but to point out that there were two councils that had different interests. The Senate, for the most part, represented the old order while the tribunes of the plebs were a lower council that represented the commoners and was a check on the Senate. Generally speaking, the Senate sided with the Optimates while the tribunes of the plebs sided with the Populares. These factions are similar to the Book of Mormon Freemen, who wanted to preserve the current government of judges, and the Kingmen who wanted to overthrow the government. In the Book of Mormon it was the lower judges, those who served as a check on the higher judges, who sided with the Kingmen. So there is some real similarity here. 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: Sertorius was assassinated by his own people which doesn’t parallel this at all. Rome put a huge bounty on his head and made Sertorius, who according to our sources was a just and fair guy, into a paranoid wreck who kicked a lot of Romans out of his retinue fearing they would kill him for the money. This paranoia made him cruel and then conspirators used the resentment that stirred up to plan an assassination. Parallelomania is a hell of a drug but it has to be pretty blatant for this to be something that was copied into the Book of Mormon. A lot of wars have been fought and have involved assassinations. There is no reason to see these as connected in any way. There are of course differences in the two stories. But as I pointed out earlier, it's in the differences that we often see important things being contributed by the second author. That is often the nature of what we would today call "adaptations." Simple retellings can't really add anything. West Side Story, for example, tells us something about inner-city racism in mid-20th Century America that couldn't have been contemplated by Shakespeare.
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 1 hour ago, JarMan said: This is a modern interpretation of the letter. Most earlier interpretations don't see it that way. I care what historians who have steeped themselves in that culture. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: There were two main factions in this civil war (at least in the classical interpretation), the Populares who wanted reforms and the Optimates who wanted to preserve the constitution . Sulla and Pompey were Optimates while Sertorius was a Populare. The Populares and Optimate labels were assigned much later by people who conceived of them as roughly equivalent to political parties. They were wrong. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: You're conflating republican-era government with the imperial era. The Senate in the republic had a lot of power and they were also an administrative branch. The point here, though, isn't to describe the exact nature of the government of Rome, but to point out that there were two councils that had different interests. The Senate, for the most part, represented the old order while the tribunes of the plebs were a lower council that represented the commoners and was a check on the Senate. Generally speaking, the Senate sided with the Optimates while the tribunes of the plebs sided with the Populares. These factions are similar to the Book of Mormon Freemen, who wanted to preserve the current government of judges, and the Kingmen who wanted to overthrow the government. In the Book of Mormon it was the lower judges, those who served as a check on the higher judges, who sided with the Kingmen. So there is some real similarity here. No, I am not conflating them. The Senate was incredibly powerful but it was technically an advisory body. It is just that it was almost always political suicide to not follow the will of the senate. If you were a consul or praetor or quaestor or whatever and the senate issued a senatus consultum telling you what to do with your army or how to spend public money you followed it. If you didn’t your political career was dead. In the Empire that advisory power was largely gone though the senate and the old offices from the Republic did function as a pool from which the Emperor could select provincial governors and generals and other administrators. And no, the Senate at the time we are talking about was not mainly about the patricians. The patrician vs plebeian ‘battles of the orders’ were settled centuries ago at this point. The tribunes of the plebes were not representatives of the people. They were politicians and many of them were pursuing the same offices. Many tribunes of the plebes were senators. And no, they are not analogous to freemen and kingmen. Also the Optimates were defending the new constitution under Sulla which stripped the tribunes of most of their powers and reworked almost everything. It also involved a lot of murder since Sulla was a cruel and vicious man. On some level he was trying to fix and preserve the Republic but he had no real grasp of what the problem was and he probably doomed the Republic by setting the example that military coups were now an acceptable form of regime change. Following Sulla Rome was in almost perpetual civil war until Augustus won. It is easy to see why he was accepted. By the time he became emperor the Republic had had over five decades of civil war with very few breaks. Most of the people living had never seen the Republic working (i.e. the Republic before Sulla). 1 hour ago, JarMan said: There are of course differences in the two stories. But as I pointed out earlier, it's in the differences that we often see important things being contributed by the second author. That is often the nature of what we would today call "adaptations." Simple retellings can't really add anything. West Side Story, for example, tells us something about inner-city racism in mid-20th Century America that couldn't have been contemplated by Shakespeare. I think you could pick dozens of ancient wars and say they are being retold in the Book of Mormon with an equivalent level of plausibility.
JarMan Posted January 10, 2025 Author Posted January 10, 2025 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I care what historians who have steeped themselves in that culture. Then you're missing the point. The Book of Mormon wasn't written with the benefit of modern scholarship. It would be anachronistic for modern ideas to show up in an earlier work. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The Populares and Optimate labels were assigned much later by people who conceived of them as roughly equivalent to political parties. They were wrong. Yes, they were wrong. But these labels were also used by Cicero in Pro Sestio. And he was wrong, as well. But that's not the point. The ancient narrative is there and could thus have been incorporated into the story. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: No, I am not conflating them. The Senate was incredibly powerful but it was technically an advisory body. It is just that it was almost always political suicide to not follow the will of the senate. If you were a consul or praetor or quaestor or whatever and the senate issued a senatus consultum telling you what to do with your army or how to spend public money you followed it. If you didn’t your political career was dead. In the Empire that advisory power was largely gone though the senate and the old offices from the Republic did function as a pool from which the Emperor could select provincial governors and generals and other administrators. And no, the Senate at the time we are talking about was not mainly about the patricians. The patrician vs plebeian ‘battles of the orders’ were settled centuries ago at this point. The tribunes of the plebes were not representatives of the people. They were politicians and many of them were pursuing the same offices. Many tribunes of the plebes were senators. But the perception portrayed at times by people like Cicero is that the Senate was composed of noble aristocrats protecting the ancient order and the tribunes flattered the people and pretended to represent them, all the while trying to secure their own interests. It doesn't matter what the reality of the historical situation was, just the story that was being told. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: And no, they are not analogous to freemen and kingmen. Also the Optimates were defending the new constitution under Sulla which stripped the tribunes of most of their powers and reworked almost everything. It also involved a lot of murder since Sulla was a cruel and vicious man. On some level he was trying to fix and preserve the Republic but he had no real grasp of what the problem was and he probably doomed the Republic by setting the example that military coups were now an acceptable form of regime change. Following Sulla Rome was in almost perpetual civil war until Augustus won. It is easy to see why he was accepted. By the time he became emperor the Republic had had over five decades of civil war with very few breaks. Most of the people living had never seen the Republic working (i.e. the Republic before Sulla). From the Sulla/Pompey perspective, they were protecting Rome against rebels that wanted to fundamentally change the government. Whether any of us agrees with that perspective is irrelevant.
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 11 minutes ago, JarMan said: I mention this to point out that new information can cause me to radically change my views. Yes, but the method (or lack of it) hasn't really changed. This has always been a problem with a certain flavor of LDS writings in that the same sorts of approaches that are used to try and promote faith can be used to dismantle it. When the process is bad, the conclusions are bad - and those who abandon faith over these issues rarely seem to question the process like they should. 13 minutes ago, JarMan said: As you may remember, my hypothesis is that Grotius wrote the Book of Mormon between about 1635 and 1645. Grotius was very familiar with Roman historiography and was a historian in his own right. I think he drew on many ancient sources--some generally, like Virgil and Homer--but others much more specifically like Tacitus, Sallust, and Julius Caesar. For the passages in the OP I think he took this directly from Caesar. I suppose you could call it plagiarism, but the modern concept of plagiarism seems to be a bit anachronistic for the 17th Century. I am quite familiar with your hypothesis. We had a lengthy discussion about it a couple of years ago. What you wrote back then hasn't really changed, I don't think: On 1/24/2023 at 3:42 AM, JarMan said: I don't know that I have a "method" in the way that you understand the term. I am relying on intuition and experience ... One thing that we can say with relative certainty is that anytime we use our intuition to analyze probabilities, we are generally going to get it wrong. This is why using an established method with controls is so important in these kinds of exercises. The issue you raise about how plagiarism has historically been understood is something of a red herring. You are absolutely right that the concept of plagiarism as we understand it today wasn't a thing in the 17th century. But, 17th century commentaries weren't particularly interested in the history or the transmission of texts that way that you are. So the term works well for us - as long as we aren't attempting to pass judgment on the authors who engage in it. My points remain completely valid - because I am not discussing why someone borrowed from one text and put it into another, I am only concerned with how these texts influenced each other. Conceptually, the notion of borrowing from a specific source is very different from the borrowing from a well-known tradition or from lived experience. The way that we discuss these issues is very different - and those differences have strong implications for conclusions that get drawn from evidence. This is a large part of why I keep coming back to these issues (and part of the reason why I suggest adopting a formal methodology). Separating these concepts provides a framework for better discussion and better investigation. The narrower the connection the stronger the argument is - but also the easier it is to disprove. So let's recap for the rest of the audience here. You believe that: 1: Grotius in the 17th century borrowed from a Latin text of Caesar's Commentaries, while writing an unknown work that is essentially the Book of Mormon. 2: At some point, this work (whether written in Latin or in Dutch) was translated into Early Modern English. 3: In the early 19th century, this unknown EME text was acquired by someone (like Joseph Smith) who edited it and redacted it (explaining anachronisms in the text that shouldn't be attributed to Grotius or the EME translator). 4: This redacted text was published as the Book of Mormon in 1830. Even if we accept this string of suppositions as fact (and I don't), this doesn't change the question of whether or not the language in this particular place should be considered part of the 19th century redaction or attributed to Grotius. I'll provide an example - There is a key word in this section of interest (at least to me): picket. This term is first used in this way (according to the OED) in 1687. It doesn't see widespread use until the 18th century. This is problematic for the EME translator - because the word picket used like this isn't EME but Modern English. Picket is a term used in the early 19th century to describe wooden palisades made using vertically placed, sharpened wooden posts. Recognizing this, we need to determine what in the language in the Book of Mormon passage that you reference should be attributed to the 19th century editor/redactor, what should be attributed to the EME translator in the mid-17th century, and only then can we make some sort of suggestion about whether or not Grotius took his hints for this text from the Latin text of Caesar's Commentaries. But now we reach the impasse. You aren't going to accept any arguments that don't start from the position that the Book of Mormon was written by Grotius - and in fact, because of the way that you deflect any incongruities back to the 19th century redactor, the argument is largely unfalsifiable. Arguments like the ones I raise (which are pretty standard for this sort of discussion) are easily ignored 17 hours ago, JarMan said: I identify other Romanisms (or maybe you would call it plagiarism--you tell me what the difference is) in a Sunstone presentation from 2019 or 2020. The word "Romanism" is simply a bad term to use. You should google it. I really don't care what term you use though, as long as you define it (so please define it). But, in that third link, lets also point out the problem of drawing a comparison using a piece of modern art - we have an issue with Rome in our modern society in that we tend to view everything that is a part of ancient warfare through that lens. Portraying the Book of Mormon narratives in terms of our modern view of ancient Roman warfare is a problem - but it isn't a problem unique to readers of the Book of Mormon. After all, I used to be an adventurer like you. Then I took an arrow in the knee. The challenge with these kinds of comparisons (in the videos you provide) is the same that we are dealing with here - there is only a single perspective on all of this. Once we get outside the Book of Mormon in early 19th century America, we see all of this in all sorts of places as well. Forts using picket style palisades along with trenches, towers (including the Roman style turrets), ramparts and all of these other things are a dime a dozen. So without the assumption that Grotius is the original author of the text that became the Book of Mormon, there is no compelling reason to see this language as coming from Roman texts - as opposed to simply the environment in which the Book of Mormon is published. And this works quite well for a text that was authored in the 19th century and for a text that is translated in the 19th century. When we deal with the question of plagiarism, though, since you seem to be willing to go there, all of my four issues with that claim still stand and are relevant and significant - and they need to be addressed. 3
webbles Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 8 hours ago, JarMan said: Hugo Grotius believed Pompey was threatening to invade Rome. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A85748.0001.001/1:4?cite1=grotius;cite1restrict=authors;firstpubl1=1470;firstpubl2=1700;rgn=div1;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=pompey "but when by Ambition and Avarice the Sedition of the Apuleij and the Gracchi, and after them the warrs of Sylla and Marius crept in, the Repub∣lique of Rome began to look Monarchish: which as Jul. Caesar! invaded upon a Po∣pular Accompt: so would Pompey have probably done, upon the SENATES." As I said, the historical context makes this interpretation likely. How do you know this statement from Grotius is related to Pompey's letter? This could be referring to lots of points in Pompey's time (such as when he actually did march on Rome with Sulla). Also, do you have any other historian or just Grotius? 8 hours ago, JarMan said: This is a modern interpretation of the letter. Most earlier interpretations don't see it that way. No it isn't. Plutarch interpreted it that way. It is probably the earliest interpretation as it fits the context much better. 8 hours ago, JarMan said: Pompey inherited his father's money, which he used to raise an army composed largely of the men that had served under his father. Saying he "inherited an army" was just shorthand. But during the Roman Republic, you don't raise an army with your money. What Pompey did was not the correct way to have an army. The Senate gives you an army, you don't raise an army. But it looks like you aren't trying to argue whether or not Moroni matched actual Roman history. You seem to be arguing whether or not Grotius misunderstanding of Roman history matches the Book of Mormon. And it could be but now we aren't looking for Romanism in the Book of Mormon but Grotiusism in the Book of Mormon. Because who knows what part of Roman history Grotius read or knew? And who knows how he interpreted the ancient historians? So far, it appears that Grotius has a really poor interpretation of the history. 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 10, 2025 Posted January 10, 2025 11 hours ago, JarMan said: According to many historians, Pompey is threatening to come back and take things by force, just like Moroni. This becomes obvious once you understand the context of Pompey's letter. In the previous decade, both Sulla and and Marius had done exactly that. They attacked the city, massacred their political opponents, and replaced the government. That is what Pompey was threatening. CFR 2
webbles Posted January 11, 2025 Posted January 11, 2025 23 hours ago, JarMan said: Hugo Grotius believed Pompey was threatening to invade Rome. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A85748.0001.001/1:4?cite1=grotius;cite1restrict=authors;firstpubl1=1470;firstpubl2=1700;rgn=div1;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=pompey "but when by Ambition and Avarice the Sedition of the Apuleij and the Gracchi, and after them the warrs of Sylla and Marius crept in, the Repub∣lique of Rome began to look Monarchish: which as Jul. Caesar! invaded upon a Po∣pular Accompt: so would Pompey have probably done, upon the SENATES." As I said, the historical context makes this interpretation likely. You are actually misreading Grotius there. I tracked down the original Latin version of that English translation. Grotius is writing observations of another book written by Tommaso Campanella. His book is called Aforismi politici. Grotius' observations were published after his death in a book called Quaedam hactenus inedita, aliaque ex Belgice editis Latine versa. Argumenti Theologici, Juridici, Politici. I was able to found that book at https://books.google.com/books?id=CxDSwrN2cLAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. The observation that you are referencing is page 102 of the book. It is the italic section. I transcribed the first part of the observation and it says (in latin): Quote Certamina Nobilium & pleebis Romae, quamdiu a vi abstitum est pons possunt in eo genere amulationis, quod non improbat Hesiodus. postquam crevit ambitus & avaritia, & ad seditiones Apulianas & Gracchanas, deiend ad Syllae Mariique bella ventum est, proximee res ad Regnum spectavit, quod sicut sub nomine populari invasit Caesar, ita sub nomine Senatus invasurus videbatur Pompejus. Est 7 nobilium distinguenda vox. olim If you know your latin (which I don't) or a Romance language (I do, Portuguese), you'll see that it roughly matches what you quoted (see the "ambitus & avaritia & ad seditiones" part). I went to Google translate to turn it from Latin into English, and this is what it said: Quote The contests of the nobles and the plebeians at Rome, as long as force was abstained from, could be a bridge in that kind of rivalry, which Hesiod does not disapprove of. After ambition and avarice grew, and the Apulian and Gracchan seditions, and the wars of Sylla and Marius came, the matter next looked to the kingdom, which, just as Caesar invaded under the name of the people, so Pompey seemed about to invade under the name of the Senate. There is a distinction to be made between the seven nobles. Formerly, the patricians alone were considered nobles: afterwards the plebeians, whose elders had held the chief honors, were called nobles, as opposed to the new men: and the patricians who did not have the right of representation from the elders were called ignobles. It comes out to be really easy to understand English. And it is obvious to see that Grotius isn't saying that Pompey is going to attack the Senate. Instead it is saying that he is going to invade "under the name of the Senate". That can also be seen in the old English translation. It says "which as Julius Caesar invaded upon a Popular Accompt, so would Pompey have probably done, upon the SENATES". Notice that both Caesar and Pompey are invading "upon" something. Caesar is invading "upon" a Popular Accompt and Pompey is invading "upon" the Senate. It is the authority on which they would use to invade. Caesar used the people and Pompey would have used the Senate. 1
JarMan Posted January 11, 2025 Author Posted January 11, 2025 On 1/10/2025 at 8:51 AM, webbles said: How do you know this statement from Grotius is related to Pompey's letter? This could be referring to lots of points in Pompey's time (such as when he actually did march on Rome with Sulla). There are several textual clues here. 1) It says Pompey probably would have invaded, meaning that he actually didn't. 2) Another is "upon a popular account". Notice this is indicating a singular account. Unlike many of these events, which have multiple sources, the text of the letter is only in Sallust's Histories, nowhere else. 3) Pompey's letter fits nicely into the timeline of other events mentioned--occurring after Sulla's and Marius' invasions and before Julius Caesar's. 4) The invasion was to be upon the Senate. This fits with Sallust's record that the letter was addressed to and read in the Senate. On 1/10/2025 at 8:51 AM, webbles said: No it isn't. Plutarch interpreted it that way. It is probably the earliest interpretation as it fits the context much better. Here is Plutarch's account: "When Pompey had exhausted most of his private resources and spent them on the war, he asked money of the senate, threatening to come back to Italy with his army if they did not send it. Lucullus was consul at this time, and was not on good terms with Pompey, but since he was soliciting the conduct of the Mithridatic war for himself, made great efforts to have the money sent,27 for fear of furthering Pompey's desire to let Sertorius go, and march against Mithridates, an antagonist whose subjection, as it was thought, would bring great glory and involve little difficulty." Pompey's intent is stated to be "to come back to Italy with his army" but Plutarch's account doesn't say for what purpose. However, Lucullus feared that Pompey coming back to Rome with his army would mean that Pompey would get command in the war against Mithridates, which is a command that Lucullus wanted (and eventually got). He, therefore, wanted to keep Pompey occupied in Spain. But nowhere is there an indication Pompey wanted to disband the army. In fact, if Pompey really meant to get the Mithridatic command himself he would need to keep his army, both to force the issue and to prevent having to raise a new army for Mithridates. So Plutarch's account is actually consistent with the idea that Pompey had ill intentions toward the government in Rome. On 1/10/2025 at 8:51 AM, webbles said: But during the Roman Republic, you don't raise an army with your money. What Pompey did was not the correct way to have an army. The Senate gives you an army, you don't raise an army. But it looks like you aren't trying to argue whether or not Moroni matched actual Roman history. You seem to be arguing whether or not Grotius misunderstanding of Roman history matches the Book of Mormon. And it could be but now we aren't looking for Romanism in the Book of Mormon but Grotiusism in the Book of Mormon. Because who knows what part of Roman history Grotius read or knew? And who knows how he interpreted the ancient historians? So far, it appears that Grotius has a really poor interpretation of the history. It's presentism to say that Grotius doesn't understand Roman history. He understood it just about as well as anybody did in his time. We know that because he wrote extensively about warfare and cited ancient Roman historians probably hundreds of times. Historians, in fact, say that he imitated Tacitus' style when writing the history of his own country.
JarMan Posted January 11, 2025 Author Posted January 11, 2025 17 hours ago, webbles said: You are actually misreading Grotius there. I tracked down the original Latin version of that English translation. Grotius is writing observations of another book written by Tommaso Campanella. His book is called Aforismi politici. Grotius' observations were published after his death in a book called Quaedam hactenus inedita, aliaque ex Belgice editis Latine versa. Argumenti Theologici, Juridici, Politici. I was able to found that book at https://books.google.com/books?id=CxDSwrN2cLAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. The observation that you are referencing is page 102 of the book. It is the italic section. I transcribed the first part of the observation and it says (in latin): If you know your latin (which I don't) or a Romance language (I do, Portuguese), you'll see that it roughly matches what you quoted (see the "ambitus & avaritia & ad seditiones" part). I went to Google translate to turn it from Latin into English, and this is what it said: It comes out to be really easy to understand English. And it is obvious to see that Grotius isn't saying that Pompey is going to attack the Senate. Instead it is saying that he is going to invade "under the name of the Senate". That can also be seen in the old English translation. It says "which as Julius Caesar invaded upon a Popular Accompt, so would Pompey have probably done, upon the SENATES". Notice that both Caesar and Pompey are invading "upon" something. Caesar is invading "upon" a Popular Accompt and Pompey is invading "upon" the Senate. It is the authority on which they would use to invade. Caesar used the people and Pompey would have used the Senate. You can't trust google translate over a human translator. It makes no historical or logical sense to claim the Senate would command Pompey to invade Rome.
JarMan Posted January 12, 2025 Author Posted January 12, 2025 On 1/10/2025 at 9:25 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: CFR I'll give two examples for now. Grotius, as discussed in my posts to webbles, and a modern historian named Elizabeth Meyer. I am confident this was the standard interpretation for some time, but don't have the time to run down references. So, instead I'll modify my statement "many historians" to "some historians" in order to answer your CFR under board rules. My source for Meyer is here: https://www.academia.edu/17002574/_Allusion_and_Contrast_in_the_Letters_of_Nicias_Thuc_7_11_15_and_Pompey_Sall_Hist_2_98M_, p. 105, "...his 'reluctant prediction' that his army will invade Italy" and p. 107 "only one of the two (Pompey and Nicias) will actually and intentionally harm his own city".
webbles Posted January 12, 2025 Posted January 12, 2025 8 minutes ago, JarMan said: You can't trust google translate over a human translator. It makes no historical or logical sense to claim the Senate would command Pompey to invade Rome. Seriously? You are just going to ignore the Latin by saying that google translate isn't good enough? Would you point to me an online translator that you would agree with? Or do I need to find a Latin speaker to translate it for you so that you'll agree with it? Because, even with my knowledge of Portuguese, I can tell that the translation is correct for the line we are talking about. The specific line is: Quote quod sicut sub nomine populari invasit Caesar, ita sub nomine Senatus invasurus videbatur Pompejus. The first one goes "sub nomine populari invasit Caesar" and the second one goes "sub nomine Senatus invasurus videbatur Pompejus". The "sub nomine" is "under the name" ("sub" is "under" and "nomine" is "name"). The "invasit" and "invasurus videbatur" both are invading. So both phrases go "under the name of X invades Y". So it is saying that Pompey will invade under the name of the Senate, just like Caesar invaded under the name of the populace. If you disagree, please show me a translation of the Latin that fits your meaning. By the way, I looked up those words in online Latin dictionaries and that is what they mean. 30 minutes ago, JarMan said: It's presentism to say that Grotius doesn't understand Roman history. He understood it just about as well as anybody did in his time. We know that because he wrote extensively about warfare and cited ancient Roman historians probably hundreds of times. Historians, in fact, say that he imitated Tacitus' style when writing the history of his own country. I'll agree that Grotius did know his history. He was right that Pompey would invade Rome under the power of the Senate. He was planning on doing that when he was in Greece and trying to defeat Caesar. Caesar had captured Rome but the senate fled with Pompey to Greece. Pompey never did that because Caesar beat him. 1
JarMan Posted January 12, 2025 Author Posted January 12, 2025 1 hour ago, webbles said: Seriously? You are just going to ignore the Latin by saying that google translate isn't good enough? Would you point to me an online translator that you would agree with? Or do I need to find a Latin speaker to translate it for you so that you'll agree with it? Because, even with my knowledge of Portuguese, I can tell that the translation is correct for the line we are talking about. The specific line is: The first one goes "sub nomine populari invasit Caesar" and the second one goes "sub nomine Senatus invasurus videbatur Pompejus". The "sub nomine" is "under the name" ("sub" is "under" and "nomine" is "name"). The "invasit" and "invasurus videbatur" both are invading. So both phrases go "under the name of X invades Y". So it is saying that Pompey will invade under the name of the Senate, just like Caesar invaded under the name of the populace. If you disagree, please show me a translation of the Latin that fits your meaning. By the way, I looked up those words in online Latin dictionaries and that is what they mean. I'll agree that Grotius did know his history. He was right that Pompey would invade Rome under the power of the Senate. He was planning on doing that when he was in Greece and trying to defeat Caesar. Caesar had captured Rome but the senate fled with Pompey to Greece. Pompey never did that because Caesar beat him. Ok, I'll agree that your reading of this is more likely. However, this doesn't change the fact that Pompey's letter has been interpreted as I've indicated. See the Elizabeth Meyer paper I cited earlier. I will look for more examples when I have more time. Another interesting tidbit here, though-Grotius was making the case that the late republic civil wars were moving Rome closer and closer to a monarchy. The Book of Mormon civil wars were explicitly about a faction wanting to replace a representative government with a monarchy.
JarMan Posted January 12, 2025 Author Posted January 12, 2025 @Benjamin McGuire I won't have time with this post to address everything from your last big post, but I'll make a start. On 1/10/2025 at 6:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: So let's recap for the rest of the audience here. You believe that: 1: Grotius in the 17th century borrowed from a Latin text of Caesar's Commentaries, while writing an unknown work that is essentially the Book of Mormon. 2: At some point, this work (whether written in Latin or in Dutch) was translated into Early Modern English. 3: In the early 19th century, this unknown EME text was acquired by someone (like Joseph Smith) who edited it and redacted it (explaining anachronisms in the text that shouldn't be attributed to Grotius or the EME translator). 4: This redacted text was published as the Book of Mormon in 1830. 1. Grotius borrowed from many sources when writing his text. Among those are several by Roman historians including Sallust, Tacitus, and Caesar. 2. The work was probably originally produced in Latin, French, or Dutch since those are the three languages most of his works and letters are written in. He also knew Greek, and I believe Syriac and Hebrew, however I don't know if he was knowledgeable enough to have written this text in any of those languages. My hypothesis is that this work was translated into English sometime shortly after his death in 1645. 3. A redaction was made before it came to Joseph Smith, but JS did not do the redaction. Based on my understanding of Skousen and Carmack's analysis, I believe this redaction replaced archaic words and perhaps some grammar, but left a lot of the archaic grammar in place. I am not hypothesizing the redaction purposefully changed any content or tried to explain any anachronisms. I do not have a hypothesized date for this redaction but it could have occurred decades before it came into Joseph's possession. 4. I propose a single change made by Joseph Smith to the document, which can be found in 2Nephi 3:15: "and his name shall be called after me and it shall be after the name of his father and he shall be like unto me". This work comprised the lost 116 pages of the manuscript and the published Book of Mormon.
webbles Posted January 12, 2025 Posted January 12, 2025 48 minutes ago, JarMan said: Ok, I'll agree that your reading of this is more likely. However, this doesn't change the fact that Pompey's letter has been interpreted as I've indicated. See the Elizabeth Meyer paper I cited earlier. I will look for more examples when I have more time. Another interesting tidbit here, though-Grotius was making the case that the late republic civil wars were moving Rome closer and closer to a monarchy. The Book of Mormon civil wars were explicitly about a faction wanting to replace a representative government with a monarchy. The case that the late republic civil wars were moving Rome closer and closer to monarchy is pretty obvious considering it actually did. Augustus became emperor shortly afterwards. So there is a similarity between the late Roman Republic and the Nephite civil wars. No argument there. But this type of thing also happened in lots of places so it is a plausible to actually occur. Otherwise, we could also argue that the written Roman histories are fabricated based on the Greek histories (in fact, Plutarch kind of did this with his Parallel Lives) I'd like to see other examples of historians who think Pompey would actually attack the city. I suspect that there are extremely few of those. 3 hours ago, JarMan said: Here is Plutarch's account: "When Pompey had exhausted most of his private resources and spent them on the war, he asked money of the senate, threatening to come back to Italy with his army if they did not send it. Lucullus was consul at this time, and was not on good terms with Pompey, but since he was soliciting the conduct of the Mithridatic war for himself, made great efforts to have the money sent,27 for fear of furthering Pompey's desire to let Sertorius go, and march against Mithridates, an antagonist whose subjection, as it was thought, would bring great glory and involve little difficulty." Pompey's intent is stated to be "to come back to Italy with his army" but Plutarch's account doesn't say for what purpose. However, Lucullus feared that Pompey coming back to Rome with his army would mean that Pompey would get command in the war against Mithridates, which is a command that Lucullus wanted (and eventually got). He, therefore, wanted to keep Pompey occupied in Spain. But nowhere is there an indication Pompey wanted to disband the army. In fact, if Pompey really meant to get the Mithridatic command himself he would need to keep his army, both to force the issue and to prevent having to raise a new army for Mithridates. So Plutarch's account is actually consistent with the idea that Pompey had ill intentions toward the government in Rome. Plutarch also wrote: Here he suffered much from lack of supplies, and wrote to the senate that he would bring his army home unless they sent him money, since he had already exhausted his own resources in the war for the defence of Italy. Indeed, this story was prevalent in Rome, that Sertorius would come back to Italy before Pompey did. To such straits were the first and ablest generals of the time reduced by the skill of Sertorius. Notice that Plutarch is saying that Pompey would come home, not attack Rome. And in the Pompey Lives (the one you quoted), notice that it doesn't mention any worry that Pompey would attack? The fear was that Pompey would get the Mithraditic command, not attack Rome. And that is because when he is home, he would be able to campaign for the position. None of the two accounts show that Rome worried about Pompey attacking them. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now