Julius Caesar in the Book of Mormon

[The Nehor]

On 1/10/2025 at 7:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

After all, I used to be an adventurer like you. Then I took an arrow in the knee.

This made me giggle. Well played.

[JarMan]

19 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

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.

Here are several more historians who believe Pompey was threatening violence against Rome in his letter, not simply threatening to disband his army.

R. F. Tannnenbaum "That is an extremely discreet threat. Such things were fashionable in Late Republican politics. In Pompey's letter to the Senate, of 75 BC, written to ask for supplies and money and men to carry on the war against Sertorius in Spain, the young general warns that otherwise he is in the same condition as Sertorius...('since neither army receives support, whichever wins can come to Italy'), and, the implication is palpable, seize what they require."

Jennifer Gerrish "Pompey's threat to bring a war from Spain into Italy obviously evokes Hannibal, but the idea of armed Romans moving towards the city probably also evoked the memory of the marches by Sulla and Caesar; and, most recently for Sallust's audience, Octavian.

C. S. Kraus and A. J. Woodman "But Pompey's power is felt most keenly in his warning that failure to help his army will bring war into Italy. His surface meaning is that when he is forced to bring his men home to feed off Italian land Sertorius' rebels will chase them over the Alps, an unrealistic claim but one which would strike fear into a senate who had earlier in this very letter been reminded of Hannibal's invasion of Italy, also from Spain. Underneath, however, is the threat that Pompey himself can invade Italy as Hannibal did -- and will, if the senate refuses help.

T. Corey Brennan "...(as we know from Sallust's letter) Pompey needed grain so badly that he threatened to march on Rome."

[JarMan]

dup

Edited January 12, 2025 by JarMan

[JarMan]

dup

Edited January 12, 2025 by JarMan

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Here are several more historians who believe Pompey was threatening violence against Rome in his letter, not simply threatening to disband his army.

R. F. Tannnenbaum "That is an extremely discreet threat. Such things were fashionable in Late Republican politics. In Pompey's letter to the Senate, of 75 BC, written to ask for supplies and money and men to carry on the war against Sertorius in Spain, the young general warns that otherwise he is in the same condition as Sertorius...('since neither army receives support, whichever wins can come to Italy'), and, the implication is palpable, seize what they require."

Context. Not about Pompey at the time. It is about later writers using Pompey as analogous to a current threat. Such analogies do not have to be accurate either in history or in the present day.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Jennifer Gerrish "Pompey's threat to bring a war from Spain into Italy obviously evokes Hannibal, but the idea of armed Romans moving towards the city probably also evoked the memory of the marches by Sulla and Caesar; and, most recently for Sallust's audience, Octavian.

She does not. She is talking about Sallust’s later history. Pompey’s actions scaring the Senate into thinking the next Julius Caesar was coming would have been quite the trick since Julius Caesar hadn’t marched on Rome yet.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

C. S. Kraus and A. J. Woodman "But Pompey's power is felt most keenly in his warning that failure to help his army will bring war into Italy. His surface meaning is that when he is forced to bring his men home to feed off Italian land Sertorius' rebels will chase them over the Alps, an unrealistic claim but one which would strike fear into a senate who had earlier in this very letter been reminded of Hannibal's invasion of Italy, also from Spain. Underneath, however, is the threat that Pompey himself can invade Italy as Hannibal did -- and will, if the senate refuses help.

This writer suggests that the implicit threat was that Pompey would retreat to Italy after being defeated and that Serorius would pursue and ravage Italy. Not a threat from Pompey to return as a conqueror but a threat that if he is not supplied he will lose and the winner will attack. Very different conclusion and probably more credible.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

T. Corey Brennan "...(as we know from Sallust's letter) Pompey needed grain so badly that he threatened to march on Rome."

Don’t see that on the page you linked and am not going to read the whole book to track it down.

Edited January 13, 2025 by The Nehor

[JarMan]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Context. Not about Pompey at the time. It is about later writers using Pompey as analogous to a current threat. Such analogies do not have to be accurate either in history or in the present day.

This is indeed about Pompey. For some additional context, this paper is primarily about Sallust's account of Julius Caesar's speech to the Senate during the aftermath of the Catiline Conspiracy. The author argues that Sallust's retelling of Caesar's speech contained a veiled threat that Pompey, who was in the east, would soon return and use violence to achieve his goals. The implication is he would use the extrajudicial execution of the conspirators (which Caesar's speech opposes) as a pretense to kill those involved, primarily Cicero. "What the conservative senators feared in 63 was another Marius, thirsting for the blood and bank accounts of optimates." Tannenbaum then tells us that there were precedents for those types of threats and gives the example of Pompey's letter in 75.

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

She does not. She is talking about Sallust’s later history. Pompey’s actions scaring the Senate into thinking the next Julius Caesar was coming would have been quite the trick since Julius Caesar hadn’t marched on Rome yet.

Sallust wrote the history after Julius Caesar marched on Rome. "The historical parallels between narrative time (the 70s and 60s) and compositional time (the early 30s) offered Sallust abundant material for comparison, and he artfully amplified or exaggerated those pre-existing parallels." "...Sallust layered his account of the post-Sullan era with allusions to contemporary events and figures."

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This writer suggests that the implicit threat was that Pompey would retreat to Italy after being defeated and that Serorius would pursue and ravage Italy. Not a threat from Pompey to return as a conqueror but a threat that if he is not supplied he will lose and the winner will attack. Very different conclusion and probably more credible.

Did you even read the passage? "Underneath, however, is the threat that Pompey himself can invade Italy as Hannibal did -- and will, if the senate refuses help." Do you seriously not know who Hannibal is?

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Don’t see that on the page you linked and am not going to read the whole book to track it down.

Try using the search feature of Google Books. It's at the bottom on the left hand side.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Did you even read the passage? "Underneath, however, is the threat that Pompey himself can invade Italy as Hannibal did -- and will, if the senate refuses help." Do you seriously not know who Hannibal is?

That brilliant psychiatrist?

[JarMan]

On 1/10/2025 at 6:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Here you misunderstand my hypothesis. My redactor is not JS or somebody in his inner circle. It is somebody who recopies the original English translation (most likely in Europe) but makes some changes to archaic vocabulary and perhaps some grammar to make it easier to understand for contemporary readers.

On 1/10/2025 at 6:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

I don't deflect any incongruities back to a redactor because I don't think there are any incongruities. That's why my argument is falsifiable. You simply need to find the incongruities.

On 1/10/2025 at 6:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I use the word Romanism in a similar sense as someone might use the word Hebraism to refer to Jewish things. More particularly, though, I am referring to things found in Roman historiography.

There are many contextual reasons to see early modern Europe in the Book of Mormon as opposed to JS's milieu. I've listed many of them on here before such as the mirrors for princes genre, burning heretics at the stake, Erastianism, and lack of civil governments. Romanisms are simply one more category that fits better with early modern Europe.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

use the word Romanism in a similar sense as someone might use the word Hebraism to refer to Jewish things. More particularly, though, I am referring to things found in Roman historiography.

But it is usually used as a label for Roman Catholicism and in derogatory way.

AI says “Latinism” is the correct term to use, but not seeing such in actual dictionaries, so am thinking the AI got creative with the question “Hebraism is to Jews like what is to Romans”.  

Quote

• Latinism:

  Similarly, "Latinism" describes a word, phrase, or idea that comes from the Latin language, which was the dominant language of the Roman Empire. 

Edited January 13, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/11/2025 at 7:11 PM, JarMan said:

I'll give two examples for now.

Thanks for the references. I know that I disappeared - Friday night, my youngest was at a friends house and did a face first dive down some stairs, fractured his jaw, and I spent the entire weekend plus at the University of Michigan hospital working through a not very cooperative health care system. I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw and read your references.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/12/2025 at 9:32 PM, JarMan said:

Here you misunderstand my hypothesis. My redactor is not JS or somebody in his inner circle. It is somebody who recopies the original English translation (most likely in Europe) but makes some changes to archaic vocabulary and perhaps some grammar to make it easier to understand for contemporary readers.

I don't really misunderstand you - it is simply easier to reference Joseph Smith as the placeholder for that person. It doesn't really matter to me who you believe it was - it isn't the person of Joseph Smith that I direct my criticisms towards (I am not trying to argue about his skill or lack of skill). The reason why Joseph Smith is useful in this role is that it avoids the further discussion about the insertion that you have argued (I think) that Joseph Smith made in the prophecy that appears to reference him.

On 1/12/2025 at 9:32 PM, JarMan said:

I don't deflect any incongruities back to a redactor because I don't think there are any incongruities. That's why my argument is falsifiable. You simply need to find the incongruities.

The incongruities are the fact that the Book of Mormon is not an EModE document in any real sense. This has been my position for a very long time. Skousen and Carmack are simply not convincing in their arguments. Parts of the text are archaic. When I suggest that there is a deflection back to your redactor (or editor that updates the language), it is because when you encounter material that cannot be attributed to the alleged EModE translator of Grotius, you push all of this on to the alleged redactor. But this sort of argument is purely reactionary and not predictive - which means it doesn't actually work as evidence. This is why I am claiming that the argument isn't falsifiable (and why your defense here doesn't actually rise to the level of making your argument falsifiable). Any anomaly or incongruity with the EModE theory is simply attributed to a later redactor. As I recall, one of my major arguments against this is something you have never addressed - the issues I raised in this essay. The ideas about the meaning of a text being unlinked to an author's intention are distinctly out of place in Grotius' milieu. But their occurrence over such a large body of material challenges the idea that Grotius could have been the author. To illustrate this, I refer you to Book III of Grotius's The Truth of the Christian Religion. This is from Section V:

Quote

It is certain, therefore, that the books of the New Testament were wrote by those whose names they bear, or by such persons as they profess themselves to be; and it is moreover evident that they had a knowledge of things they wrote about, and had no desire to say what was false; whence it follows, that what they wrote must be true, because every falsity either proceeds from ignorance, or from an ill intention.

This is about as close as he comes to Nephi - and it is in Nephi's first introduction (1 Nephi 1) that we see this sort of thing playing out - this is 1 Nephi 1:3 -

Quote

And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

The Book of Mormon goes off the rails after this as far as Grotius is concerned. Consider this from Section 9:

Quote

it is impossible he [God] should suffer such a multitude of men, who had no other design than to worship him with sincerity, to be deceived by false books.

and then from Section 15:

Quote

I see no other objection can be made against these books, unless it be that they have not continued to be the same as they were at the beginning. It must be owned, that, as in other books, so in these it might happen, and has happened, that, through carelessness or perverseness in the transcribers, some letters, syllables, or words, may be changed, omitted, or added. But it is very unreasonable, that, because of such a difference of copies,442 which could not but happen in so long time, there should arise any controversy about the Testament or book itself; because both custom and reason require that that should be preferred before the rest which is to be found in the most ancient copies. But it can never be proved that all the copies are corrupted by fraud, or any other way, especially in those places which contain any doctrine, or remarkable point of history;  ... And further, what we now said concerning the different sects of Christians may be applied here also; that all of them, at least all that own God to be the Creator of the world, and Christ to be a new lawgiver, make use of these books as we now have them. If any attempted to put in any thing, they were accused of forgery by the rest. And that no sect was allowed the liberty to alter these books according to their own pleasure, is sufficiently evident from hence, that all sects fetched their arguments against the rest from hence. And what we hinted concerning the Divine Providence, relates as much to the principal parts as to the whole books; that it is not agreeable thereto that God should suffer so many thousand men, who were regardful of piety, and sought after eternal life with a sincere intention, to fall into an error that they could not possibly avoid. And thus much may suffice for the books of the New Testament, which, if they were alone extant, were sufficient to teach us the true religion.

This is completely contrary to what Nephi tells us in 1 Nephi 13:

Quote

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

And all of this sits as the backdrop to Nephi's philosophical approach to interpreting texts - to his suggestion that he/we should "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning." This idea is completely out of place in Grotius - he would consider it to be heresy. And yet here it is. And if this cannot be attributed to Grotius, it becomes problematic since this is one of the major themes of 1 and 2 Nephi - to the point that introducing it into an existing text would require a significant reworking of the entire text of 1 and 2 Nephi and not some small editorial insertion or redaction. This is the sort of anachronism I point to in response to your Grotius speculations. My essay that I linked to is deeply challenging to your theory - because you cannot find anything like these ideas in Grotius.

On 1/12/2025 at 9:32 PM, JarMan said:

I use the word Romanism in a similar sense as someone might use the word Hebraism to refer to Jewish things. More particularly, though, I am referring to things found in Roman historiography.

Thank you for the definition. I just want to point out (again) that the description of fortifications that you pointed to in the OP isn't unique enough to Roman historiography to make this term apply here.

On 1/12/2025 at 9:32 PM, JarMan said:

There are many contextual reasons to see early modern Europe in the Book of Mormon as opposed to JS's milieu. I've listed many of them on here before such as the mirrors for princes genre, burning heretics at the stake, Erastianism, and lack of civil governments. Romanisms are simply one more category that fits better with early modern Europe.

And I have pointed out before that these claims of yours are predicated on interpretations that assume that source. Consider, for example, your "burning heretics at the stake". No one in the Book of Mormon is burned at the stake. It is easy to look for similarities - but similarities in these sorts of comparisons aren't nearly as interesting as the differences (a point I have also made with you repeatedly). It is the differences that matter. And your theory runs into problems when we have things in the Book of Mormon that are really out of place in your early modern Europe.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Thanks for the references. I know that I disappeared - Friday night, my youngest was at a friends house and did a face first dive down some stairs, fractured his jaw, and I spent the entire weekend plus at the University of Michigan hospital working through a not very cooperative health care system. I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw and read your references.

How is he doing?  

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How is he doing?

All of his teeth are intact. He has two new potentially permanent titanium strips in his head. And eating through a straw really sucks ... but other than that, he's fine.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And eating through a straw really sucks

I wasn’t sure if we could giggle at that or not…probably not.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I wasn’t sure if we could giggle at that or not…probably not.

I am more than giggling…I did not catch that the first time around.

[Okrahomer]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am more than giggling…I did not catch that the first time around.

I know how carefully Benjamin writes, so I figured this had to be deliberate; but then I wasn’t so sure…

[manol]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No one in the Book of Mormon is burned at the stake.

Abinadi?  King Noah? 

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, manol said:

Abinadi?  King Noah? 

The method described sounds more like being bound and then beaten and burnt to death with firebrands/torches. It doesn’t describe being tied to a stake, having wood piled around you, and then lighting it on fire. The option chosen is likely much more prolonged and cruel.

[manol]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The method described sounds more like being bound and then beaten and burnt to death with firebrands/torches. It doesn’t describe being tied to a stake, having wood piled around you, and then lighting it on fire. The option chosen is likely much more prolonged and cruel.

Agreed that "stake" is not specified; however "burning" is, and seems to me that's the main point.  An outspoken heretic - Abinadi - was burned to death (as was the king who ordered his execution).  Exactly how they restrained him is imo secondary to the burning-to-death part. 

Edited January 17, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, manol said:

Agreed that "stake" is not specified; however "burning" is, and seems to me that's the main point.  An outspoken heretic - Abinadi - was burned to death (as was the king who ordered his execution).  Exactly how they restrained him is imo secondary to the burning-to-death part. 

Are there not other cultures though where burning to death was used to execute people?  Execution by fire is not that useful to identify a unique culture or time period.

”The first estab­lished death penal­ty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which cod­i­fied the death penal­ty for 25 dif­fer­ent crimes. The death penal­ty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.‘s Hittite Code; in the Seventh Century B.C.‘s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only pun­ish­ment for all crimes; and in the Fifth Century B.C.‘s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sen­tences were car­ried out by such means as cru­ci­fix­ion, drown­ing, beat­ing to death, burn­ing alive, and impalement”

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/background/history-of-the-death-penalty/early-history-of-the-death-penalty

It is apparently still in use in Syria.

https://snhr.org/wp-content

Edited January 17, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are there not other cultures though where burning to death was used to execute people? 

Of course there are.

I think you are responding to something I did not say.

@Benjamin McGuire said "No one in the Book of Mormon is burned at the stake."  That is what I was responding to. 

 

 

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't really misunderstand you - it is simply easier to reference Joseph Smith as the placeholder for that person. It doesn't really matter to me who you believe it was - it isn't the person of Joseph Smith that I direct my criticisms towards (I am not trying to argue about his skill or lack of skill). The reason why Joseph Smith is useful in this role is that it avoids the further discussion about the insertion that you have argued (I think) that Joseph Smith made in the prophecy that appears to reference him.

There's a certain amount of baggage that comes with Joseph Smith regardless of what opinion one may have of him. I would rather not have my hypothesis saddled with unnecessary baggage, which is why I point out that my redactor is not him.

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The incongruities are the fact that the Book of Mormon is not an EModE document in any real sense. This has been my position for a very long time. Skousen and Carmack are simply not convincing in their arguments. Parts of the text are archaic.

I suggest we don't venture down this rabbit hole. I find Skousen's and Carmack's arguments convincing. You don't. I suspect this is confirmation bias, more than anything else.

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When I suggest that there is a deflection back to your redactor (or editor that updates the language), it is because when you encounter material that cannot be attributed to the alleged EModE translator of Grotius, you push all of this on to the alleged redactor.

No, Ben, I don't. I push nothing of substance onto my redactor. My redactor merely modernizes some of the vocabulary and perhaps some of the syntax.

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But this sort of argument is purely reactionary and not predictive - which means it doesn't actually work as evidence. This is why I am claiming that the argument isn't falsifiable (and why your defense here doesn't actually rise to the level of making your argument falsifiable). Any anomaly or incongruity with the EModE theory is simply attributed to a later redactor.

This is simply not accurate. My hypothesis is that everything is congruent with the early modern world except for Joseph's insertion. There are no anomalies or incongruities that need to be attributed to my redactor. I see that in the rest of your post you've alleged some incongruities. I will address them when I have a chance.

Edited January 17, 2025 by JarMan

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, manol said:

Of course there are.

I think you are responding to something I did not say.

@Benjamin McGuire said "No one in the Book of Mormon is burned at the stake."  That is what I was responding to. 

 

 

I read too much into your comment.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Agreed that "stake" is not specified; however "burning" is, and seems to me that's the main point.  An outspoken heretic - Abinadi - was burned to death (as was the king who ordered his execution).  Exactly how they restrained him is imo secondary to the burning-to-death part. 

There is a difference between restraining someone in a fire and beating them to death with torches. I think we imported our witch burning stereotype into the Book of Mormon.

[manol]

deleted

 

Edited January 17, 2025 by manol