Julius Caesar in the Book of Mormon

[JarMan]

15 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.

Wow! Sorry to hear this. Seeing our own children suffer is the worst.

[JarMan]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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:

There's no contradiction here. Nephi is telling us that that there are OT-era prophets that didn't make it into the OT. This is an old idea that comes from the fact that there are many references in both the OT and NT to extrabiblical scripture.

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

How is this "completely out of place in Grotius"? Why would he consider this heresy? I'd like to know the sources you are relying on to make these claims.

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Then where else do we find descriptions of fortifications that match this closely to the Book of Mormon? And importantly, where else do we find such congruence in the order of the similarities. It's significant that two of these similarities I referenced have nothing to do with the fortifications themselves. The "...for he caused his armies to commence..." is not necessary for describing the fortifications. Neither is "...they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength..." But we find similar phrases in similar positions in Caesar's text. Unless you can point to another example, then these similarities are unique.

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

This most reasonable reading of the text is that Abinadi is burned at the stake. I've discussed this at length on here in the past and don't really want to rehash this.

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

The differences do indeed matter. But not for the reasons you've put forward. You've identified differences and simply claimed them as evidence against literary dependence, when that is not how it works in the real world. That's why I bring up the Romeo and Juliet vs Westside Story comparison. We know for a fact there is literary dependence here and yet we see all kinds of differences in the stories. Differences are expected.

15 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

For example?

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, manol said:

Abinadi?  King Noah? 

Nope. They aren't necessarily burned at the stake. What the text actually says, matters:

Quote

And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and scourged [scorched] his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death.

But, it isn't just what the text says in these situations that matters, it's what the text doesn't say. And what I mean by that is this - we have a lot of literature from the time period (between Grotius and 1830) that describes people being burned at the stake. And none of them look like what we read in Mosiah 17. So the only reason why we fixate on the idea that Abinadi was burned at the stake is because people read the text and interpret it a certain way - by adding to the text to their own expectations. I am not questioning the fact that Europeans burned heretics at the stake. I am just suggesting that this history is what encourages people to liken the text unto themselves - to read that sort of punishment into the text. And that is fine when we are reading the text - because, realistically, the actual mechanics of the death aren't terribly important to the narrative. But it does matter a great deal when we are trying to assert a history of the text by suggesting that it was written at a specific time and place by a specific person. In that situation it matters a great deal - because we would expect it to look a lot like the other things that were written in that time and place - and more importantly by that specific person. And this is more true when we start discussing the local text as a translation of that text written at a specific time and place by a specific person - because then we also have the translation to think of. Translations don't usually make texts more esoteric or difficult - they usually simply things and render language into common ideas. If the original Grotius composition was about burning at the stake, we would expect to see that more clearly reflected in translation.

So, there is nothing here that is particularly helpful in establishing the kinds of arguments that Jarman is making. The arguments are just as good (if not better) when we draw a similar sort of comparison in the context of early Christian martyrdom. Being burned alive has a long history (including in the early United States) so that making the connection between one text and another text written by a specific person in a specific place and time requires more than just some sort of general overlap.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

Not particularly - I have, after all, discussed my views and the reasoning behind them at length for a very long time now, and in some very public forums. You are welcome to engage in some formal criticism of my published views.

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

And I am saying that this is demonstrably not true. The easiest layer is the language itself. EModE makes up (potentially) only a tiny fraction of the language of the Book of Mormon. This isn't rocket science. There seems to me to be a huge gap in your understanding of the language of the Book of Mormon - in that you think that Skousen is claiming that most of the text of the Book of Mormon is EModE. There are two sides to this argument. One, there is a significant amount of language in the Book of Mormon that isn't EModE. Two, there aren't any examples of EModE that Skousen identifies that cannot be easily found in literature written after the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is the reason why one of my bigger issues with Skousen is the simple idea that language isn't itself demarcated into easily separatable time periods. To put it another way, we define the periods of English by certain characteristics and then somewhat arbitrarily set limits on the time period based on when those characteristics are most prevalent - and then we label all of the texts produced in that time frame as being a part of that period of English. It flows quite easily in this direction. It doesn't work very well at all to assert that a text must have been created in the EModE period based on its use of some of those characteristics - because (among other things) those characteristics aren't exclusive to the time period. You could make that argument if you couldn't find any characteristics of later periods of English in the text - but with the Book of Mormon, we all know that this isn't true. Much of the Book of Mormon is written in Late Modern English - and this can be identified not only by linguistic characteristics but also by the words themselves and their usage. The idea of a Late Modern English redactor of the text simply creates a hypothetical buffer to protect from complaints about the appearance of these textual features. So instead of making an assertion, I will ask you a simple question:

What sort of occurrence of Late Modern English vocabulary or linguistic characteristic would prove fatal to the hypothesis that the text was written by Grotius, translated shortly after it was written in EModE by an unknown translator, and then later updated by another unknown redactor?

If you cannot provide an answer to this, then you have built an unfalsifiable argument - insulated from all the linguistic level arguments that we might introduce to disprove the hypothesis.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

There's no contradiction here. Nephi is telling us that that there are OT-era prophets that didn't make it into the OT. This is an old idea that comes from the fact that there are many references in both the OT and NT to extrabiblical scripture.

Ummm, no.That is not what Nephi is telling us. Let me requote just a bit of this:

Quote

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.

The reference to the Jews here is a reference to the idea that Jesus's ministry was first to the Jews (an idea found most clearly in Romans 1:16). The twelve apostles are a Christian thing. So the gospel of the Lamb that is changed is a reference to the New Testament, and not a specific reference to the Old Testament. The "great and abominable church" - whatever it might reference - is a reference to something in Christianity. This is not a discussion about extra-canonical Old and New Testament texts at all.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

How is this "completely out of place in Grotius"? Why would he consider this heresy? I'd like to know the sources you are relying on to make these claims.

It is comments like this that make me think that you really haven't read Grotius - that all of your research comes as the result of digital searches rather than any sort of engagement with his ideas and his language. But, since you are so good at finding parallels, find the parallels for me.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Then where else do we find descriptions of fortifications that match this closely to the Book of Mormon? And importantly, where else do we find such congruence in the order of the similarities. It's significant that two of these similarities I referenced have nothing to do with the fortifications themselves. The "...for he caused his armies to commence..." is not necessary for describing the fortifications. Neither is "...they could cast stones from the top thereof, according to their pleasure and their strength..." But we find similar phrases in similar positions in Caesar's text. Unless you can point to another example, then these similarities are unique.

The MOA archive is full of them. I have looked through it. Here is the problem that you have - earthen ditches and earthworks, with ramparts, wooden pallisades, observation towers and turrets - these were all common features of early American forts. But just so that you get some sense of it -

Quote

Armies often built numerous earthworks while on campaign.  These earthworks followed a similar pattern in both armies.  They would often have redoubts at locations of importance and then would connect the redoubts with earthen trenches.  Soldiers and laborers would dig in the ground creating a dry moat and then would throw the dirt up to create a rampart.  Outside of the dry moat they would place tangled tree branches that was called abatis that would act as an early form barbed wire and could entangle attacking troops.  Often into the walls of the fortification they would drive large pieces of timber that had sharpened ends called fraises.  Any troops assaulting the fortification would have to trudge through the abatis, drop into the dry moat and then make their way through the fraises to get over the ramparts, all the while under a galling fire from cannons and muskets.  Both sides used sappers and miners for attacking entrenched positions.  It was their job to move in the van of the assaulting column with axes and cut up these defenses to make holes for assaulting infantry.

This is, of course a modern text describing this - but these are the same features that you highlight in your comparison. The point is, when I go back to the contemporary accounts, the language is much more similar to what we find in both the Book of Mormon and in the contemporary translation of Caesar's texts (which is what we would expect). And, as I also pointed out, the many descriptions in both the Book of Mormon of this sort of thing in various ways and the many descriptions in the Caesar translation really make the argument about specific order irrelevant. You just have to look through them until you find two that have the set of elements that match. With enough contemporary accounts of revolutionary and french and indian war accounts, I can do the same thing fairly easily. This is the reason why your arguments in the OP aren't very meaningful.

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

The differences do indeed matter. But not for the reasons you've put forward. You've identified differences and simply claimed them as evidence against literary dependence, when that is not how it works in the real world. That's why I bring up the Romeo and Juliet vs Westside Story comparison. We know for a fact there is literary dependence here and yet we see all kinds of differences in the stories. Differences are expected.

You keep bringing that up. We know there is literary dependence - not because of the similarities - but because of extra-textual data. For example, here is description of the copy of Romeo and Juliet that Bernstein used when writing the script for West Side Story. This is why we know for a fact that there was literary dependence. And yes there are differences - and those differences can tell us a great deal about what Bernstein wanted to do with the story that Shakespeare didn't do. But this isn't analogous to what you are trying to do here. And here, the differences matter a great deal more because we don't have these external data points. You want to suggest that this was written by Grotius. One of the things that we look at when we deal with suggestions of authorship for unknown works is how well those works align with known works by the proposed author. Here you have Grotius. When I point out issues where the Book of Mormon disagrees with Grotius, it calls that authorship theory into question. Consider, for example this problem -

Grotius produced the governmental theory of atonement. He wrote an entire book about it: Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem. This is at odds with the Book of Mormon's various discussions about atonement. Some of this is really straightforward. Perhaps more importantly there is a distinct difference in language. Grotius, for example, frames the atonement using the language of public criminal law rather than civil law. That is, atonement involves a moral crime that must be prosecuted, and not a debt that must be repayed. And yet the Book of Mormon takes the opposite approach in terms of its language. Consider, for a moment, Mosiah 2:24:

Quote

And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

This language is foreign to Grotius. These are not simple disagreements - but connected to deep theological discussions in the text. My experience is that there is far more in the Book of Mormon that disagrees with the known writings of Grotius than agrees with him. And this statement alone illustrates the problem I am trying to address. If all that is being looked at is the similarities, you get an artificial picture of how close the Book of Mormon is to Grotius. But it is illusion. Likewise, if all you do is look at the specific examples that Skousen offers of EModE in the Book of Mormon, you get no sense of how much of the book is actually LModE. Differences are far more important than you suggest - and if you can't explain them, then you really have no viable argument.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

. I am just suggesting that this history is what encourages people to liken the text unto themselves - to read that sort of punishment into the text.

Once I realized it wasn’t describing being burned at the stake, my mind automatically shifted it to be more similar to what happened later which at the time meant with a pit dug and people thrown in….but as far as I can tell now amounts simply being “cast into fire”, which most definitely is not getting staked out in a pile of kindling and logs with a chance watch the wood catching fire, etc.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/14?lang=eng#p17

same language is used for what is going to happen to the bad guys.

On a related subject….

Came across a story for children about Amulek, found it quite different than the ones I read as a child.  Interested in others’ reactions.  Is this a good way to present the story or do you have problems with it? Please use the assumption the scripture is telling a truthful story to the best of the writer’s ability, even if you believe personally the scriptures are a load of manure.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/ammonihah-and-the-shelling-of-a-man

Quote

We have spent some time talking about Alma’s life. There were certainly some sad moments, but you might think we are past all that now because he went out on a mission to teach people about Jesus. And the people in Zarahemla listened and things got better, and so the rest of his life will be hopeful and happy. But that is not true.

The story we are about to tell is about another city that did not listen to Alma. And this is one of the saddest parts of Alma’s sad life. But we are going to tell it because when life gets really sad, something happens to people. They break. They break like a shelled nut. Either they crumble to pieces and the nut and the shell get all mixed together and it is almost impossible to tell which is which, or else they crack wide open, revealing their precious, vulnerable, beautiful heart.

And this is a story about the tragic shelling of a man’s heart. So let’s begin this sad sad sad sad story. And let’s begin with a man named Amulek. Amulek lived in a city called Ammonihah. He had a nice house with trees in the backyard. On weekends he probably sat in the shade and drank chocolate milk as he watched his friends and family go by. It was a good place to live. Because any place is a good place to live if you are living there with people you love. And he loved his friends and his family.

But his life was about to change. It would change in a good way and in a very very bad way. Because life is not simple. And what is good and right is not simple. And doing what is good and right can be very hard. Amulek was about to learn this because Alma was about to show up.

There he is, wearing those walking sandals. He is coming up over a hill. Amulek can see him now because Amulek is out enjoying his chocolate milk. They have never met before. Complete strangers to one another. But Amulek is startled. Because guess what? He recognizes the man. How can he recognize a man he has never met before?

Well, Amulek had a dream. And in his dream, an angel introduced this man to Amulek. So even though they had never met, Amulek knew him. Still, Amulek was a little nervous because that was a strange way to meet a stranger. But he also knew that the man was a holy man and that he should take care of him.

And that is a good thing too, because Alma had been walking for days and was weak and tired and hungry. Amulek took Alma to his house. “Here is my home,” he said, as he poured him a glass of chocolate milk. “Be comfortable here. Here is my bed. Rest a while.” And Amulek and his family cared for Alma. And Alma said thank you by telling them about Jesus. And they listened to Alma and decided to believe him and trust Jesus.

 

Edited January 17, 2025 by Calm

[manol]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Nope. They aren't necessarily burned at the stake. What the text actually says, matters:

Okay, I failed to understand how critical to the point you were making the "at the stake" part was. 

Agreed that the text does not specify "at the stake".  The text emphasizes the "suffering death by fire" aspect, so that is what stood out to me.  In addition to the part you quoted, from the same few verses:

"many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire"

"ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire"

"when Abinadi had said these words, he fell, having suffered death by fire"

I think the text supports the idea that Abinadi was burned to death for something that falls under the umbrella of "heresy", but it may not have been "at the stake". 

Edited January 17, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Abinadi was burned to death for something that falls under the umbrella of "heresy"

Anciently, the civil and religious were typically tied together, so “heresy” probably covered a lot more than it does now and would be classed as treasonous (heresy would include acts against the state as well as the state established religion, acts against the state would be seen as acts against Deity), I believe.  He was a primarily a threat to the rulers, both the king and the priests.  That is why he was killed.

Edited January 17, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I think the text supports the idea that Abinadi was burned to death for something that falls under the umbrella of "heresy", but it may not have been "at the stake". 

Absolutely. The challenge for those who haven't paid attention to this discussion over the past several years is that Jarman's claims are quite specific. Consider this:

On 1/16/2023 at 3:09 AM, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon isn't shy about criticizing Calvinism. But it takes this a step further and blasts Calvin, himself, by representing him allegorically as King Noah. Meanwhile, Abinadi is used allegorically to represent a real-life martyr Calvin burned at the stake.

Burning at the stake is actually a fairly important issue for him (as opposed to simply burning) because he wants us to see the narrative of Abinadi in the Book of Mormon as an allegorical retelling of the persecution and martyrdom of a heretic who was burned at the stake by Calvin. Nobody contests the idea that there are lots of people who are burned to death in the Book of Mormon. No one contests that death by fire is all that uncommon historically - and even into modern times (the last person burned to death in the United States in an act of capital punishment seems to have been, coincidentally, in 1830). But to say that the Book of Mormon narrative is an allegorical retelling (and is therefore based on) a specific historical event told by a specific historical person (Hugo Grotius) at a specific time and in a specific place is a claim that doesn't work as well on generalities. I think it is very appropriate to call out this issue.

[manol]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge for those who haven't paid attention to this discussion over the past several years is that Jarman's claims are quite specific.

I had no idea this was a discussion that has been taking place for several years.  My mistake to respond to one sentence in one post in isolation. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I had no idea this was a discussion that has been taking place for several years.  My mistake to respond to one sentence in one post in isolation. 

It is irresistible though.

[JarMan]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Nope. They aren't necessarily burned at the stake. What the text actually says, matters:

But, it isn't just what the text says in these situations that matters, it's what the text doesn't say. And what I mean by that is this - we have a lot of literature from the time period (between Grotius and 1830) that describes people being burned at the stake. And none of them look like what we read in Mosiah 17.

The best source for accounts of people being burned at the stake is Foxe's Book of Martyrs, first published in 1563. A lot of similar content appears in the account of Abinadi's death. I've mentioned several of these before, but I'll repeat a few off the top of my head. We have fagots being mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is an important detail because fagots became the symbol of the process in early modern times. And this word is found all throughout Foxe in describing the executions. Abinadi was also given one last chance to be saved from the flames by simply taking back what had been said. This is very common in Foxe. We also have Abinadi's speech from the flames. This is another common occurrence in Foxe. While many gave short Stephen the Martyr-like remarks, some were predictions of doom on those putting them to death like Abinadi's. We also have "And now, when Abinadi had said these words, he fell, having suffered death by fire..." This implies he was in a standing position and we know that he was bound. The stake here is clearly implied, else why not walk out of the fire? Compare to (from Foxe) "Then immediately bowing forwards, he yielded up his spirit." There's actually very little, if anything, in Abinadi's execution that you can't find in Foxe.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Then immediately bowing forwards, he yielded up his spirit

How many people fall while dying?

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, JarMan said:

This implies he was in a standing position and we know that he was bound. The stake here is clearly implied, else why not walk out of the fire?

Maybe his feet were tied up as well as his hands?  How could he fall if tied to a stake before the ropes burnt through?

Bowing forward because one is tied at the waist to a stake is not falling.

Edited January 18, 2025 by Calm

[JarMan]

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Not particularly - I have, after all, discussed my views and the reasoning behind them at length for a very long time now, and in some very public forums. You are welcome to engage in some formal criticism of my published views.

And I am saying that this is demonstrably not true. The easiest layer is the language itself. EModE makes up (potentially) only a tiny fraction of the language of the Book of Mormon. This isn't rocket science. There seems to me to be a huge gap in your understanding of the language of the Book of Mormon - in that you think that Skousen is claiming that most of the text of the Book of Mormon is EModE. There are two sides to this argument. One, there is a significant amount of language in the Book of Mormon that isn't EModE. Two, there aren't any examples of EModE that Skousen identifies that cannot be easily found in literature written after the publication of the Book of Mormon. This is the reason why one of my bigger issues with Skousen is the simple idea that language isn't itself demarcated into easily separatable time periods. To put it another way, we define the periods of English by certain characteristics and then somewhat arbitrarily set limits on the time period based on when those characteristics are most prevalent - and then we label all of the texts produced in that time frame as being a part of that period of English. It flows quite easily in this direction. It doesn't work very well at all to assert that a text must have been created in the EModE period based on its use of some of those characteristics - because (among other things) those characteristics aren't exclusive to the time period. You could make that argument if you couldn't find any characteristics of later periods of English in the text - but with the Book of Mormon, we all know that this isn't true. Much of the Book of Mormon is written in Late Modern English - and this can be identified not only by linguistic characteristics but also by the words themselves and their usage. The idea of a Late Modern English redactor of the text simply creates a hypothetical buffer to protect from complaints about the appearance of these textual features. So instead of making an assertion, I will ask you a simple question:

What sort of occurrence of Late Modern English vocabulary or linguistic characteristic would prove fatal to the hypothesis that the text was written by Grotius, translated shortly after it was written in EModE by an unknown translator, and then later updated by another unknown redactor?

If you cannot provide an answer to this, then you have built an unfalsifiable argument - insulated from all the linguistic level arguments that we might introduce to disprove the hypothesis.

My hypothesis needs to be falsified based on the content of the Book of Mormon, not its language. You're argument about the atonement theory, for example, if you were actually right about it would weaken my theory. More on that later, though.

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Ummm, no.That is not what Nephi is telling us. Let me requote just a bit of this:

The reference to the Jews here is a reference to the idea that Jesus's ministry was first to the Jews (an idea found most clearly in Romans 1:16). The twelve apostles are a Christian thing. So the gospel of the Lamb that is changed is a reference to the New Testament, and not a specific reference to the Old Testament. The "great and abominable church" - whatever it might reference - is a reference to something in Christianity. This is not a discussion about extra-canonical Old and New Testament texts at all.

Nephi is describing the Jewish canon in ancient times here: "The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel..." This is not the New Testament, obviously. Then he tells us there are many things "taken away" or "kept back" by the great and abominable church, which of course is referring to something within Christianity. The obvious meaning is that the early church left out books, like Enoch for example, when standardizing the canon. Maybe there were gospels or other Christian era books left out, as well. But Nephi's vision isn't telling us the text has been changed. That's not what "taken away" and "kept back" mean.

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is comments like this that make me think that you really haven't read Grotius - that all of your research comes as the result of digital searches rather than any sort of engagement with his ideas and his language. But, since you are so good at finding parallels, find the parallels for me.

You are dodging the question and trying to use condescension and redirects as a distraction. So I'll ask the question again: how is Nephi's assertion that we should "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning" "completely out of place in Grotius"? How do you know he would consider that to be heresy?

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The MOA archive is full of them. I have looked through it. Here is the problem that you have - earthen ditches and earthworks, with ramparts, wooden pallisades, observation towers and turrets - these were all common features of early American forts. But just so that you get some sense of it -

This is, of course a modern text describing this - but these are the same features that you highlight in your comparison.

No, they're not the same features.

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The point is, when I go back to the contemporary accounts, the language is much more similar to what we find in both the Book of Mormon and in the contemporary translation of Caesar's texts (which is what we would expect). And, as I also pointed out, the many descriptions in both the Book of Mormon of this sort of thing in various ways and the many descriptions in the Caesar translation really make the argument about specific order irrelevant. You just have to look through them until you find two that have the set of elements that match. With enough contemporary accounts of revolutionary and french and indian war accounts, I can do the same thing fairly easily. This is the reason why your arguments in the OP aren't very meaningful.

Caesar's description of the fortifications is very compact and in the same order as the Book of Mormon description. This makes it very meaningful because it is evidence for literary dependence. The OP is not just about similarities in fortifications, it's also about similarities in their descriptions. You can't just hand wave these away because they are inconvenient to your pov. 

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You keep bringing that up. We know there is literary dependence - not because of the similarities - but because of extra-textual data. For example, here is description of the copy of Romeo and Juliet that Bernstein used when writing the script for West Side Story. This is why we know for a fact that there was literary dependence. And yes there are differences - and those differences can tell us a great deal about what Bernstein wanted to do with the story that Shakespeare didn't do.

The reason I keep bringing it up is because you have a tendency to claim differences are necessarily evidence of non-dependence without explaining why the differences are fatal. My Westside Story example shows the fallacy in that approach. It's the why that matters. This is two-sided, though, so don't get me wrong. I have as much responsibility for explaining why particular differences aren't fatal as you do for showing why they are.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The best source for accounts of people being burned at the stake is Foxe's Book of Martyrs, first published in 1563. A lot of similar content appears in the account of Abinadi's death. I've mentioned several of these before, but I'll repeat a few off the top of my head. We have fagots being mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This is an important detail because fagots became the symbol of the process in early modern times. And this word is found all throughout Foxe in describing the executions. Abinadi was also given one last chance to be saved from the flames by simply taking back what had been said. This is very common in Foxe. We also have Abinadi's speech from the flames. This is another common occurrence in Foxe. While many gave short Stephen the Martyr-like remarks, some were predictions of doom on those putting them to death like Abinadi's. We also have "And now, when Abinadi had said these words, he fell, having suffered death by fire..." This implies he was in a standing position and we know that he was bound. The stake here is clearly implied, else why not walk out of the fire? Compare to (from Foxe) "Then immediately bowing forwards, he yielded up his spirit." There's actually very little, if anything, in Abinadi's execution that you can't find in Foxe.

Just because they used the word doesn't really matter.  It is that the killing described in the Book of Mormon doesn't sound like a burning at the stake unless you are expecting it to be there.  Why would the Grotius (or whoever is the author) be so circumspect?  Why not be obvious that it is burning at the stake?  The Book of Mormon says "And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death And now when the flames began to scorch him, he cried unto them, saying:".  That doesn't sound like a normal burning at the stake.  It sounds like they are beating him with sticks that were on fire.

I took a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs (at here https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/index.php) and all the places that mention fagots in relation to burning are all pretty obvious that the person is being burned at the stake.  It mentions stakes, piles of wood to burn on, starting the fire at the feet, etc.  Why would Grotius also not be obvious?

[webbles]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe his feet were tied up as well as his hands?  How could he fall if tied to a stake before the ropes burnt through?

Bowing forward because one is tied at the waist to a stake is not falling.

In this specific story, Foxe mentions that the victim specifically didn't want to be bound at the neck and feet.  They only bound him at the waist.  So yes, he just bent forward, he didn't fall.  See https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/index.php?realm=text&gototype=&edition=1583&pageid=1534. 

Quote

Now when he was at the stake, three yrons made to binde him to the stake, were brought: one for his necke, an other for his middle, and the thirde for his legges. But he refusing them said: ye haue no neede thus to trouble your selues. For I doubt not but God will geue strength sufficient to abide the extremitie of the fire, w^tout bands: notwithstanding, suspecting the frailty and weakenesse of the flesh, but hauing assured confidence in Gods strength, I am content ye doe as ye shall thinke good.

So the hoope of yron prepared for hys middle, was brought, whych being made somewhat too shorte (for hys belly was swolne by imprisonment) he shranke and put in his belly w^t his hand, vntil it was fastened: and when they offered to haue bound his necke & his legs wyth the other two hoopes of yron, he vtterly refused them, & would haue none, saying: I am wel assured I shall not trouble you.

The story also goes on about how it took three fires to finally kill him.

[JarMan]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe his feet were tied up as well as his hands?

That doesn't sound very practical. Hopping or even somersaulting would easily let him escape the flames.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

How could he fall if tied to a stake before the ropes burnt through?

Bowing forward because one is tied at the waist to a stake is not falling.

I think it is the same thing. After all, it does not say that he fell to the earth. But even so, here is another description from Foxe of a victim falling: "So he stood still without either crying or moving, with his hands folded together, till Soyce, with a halbered struck him on the head till his brains fell out, and the corpse fell down into the fire."

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JarMan said:

That doesn't sound very practical. Hopping or even somersaulting would easily let him escape the flames.

I think it is the same thing. After all, it does not say that he fell to the earth. But even so, here is another description from Foxe of a victim falling: "So he stood still without either crying or moving, with his hands folded together, till Soyce, with a halbered struck him on the head till his brains fell out, and the corpse fell down into the fire."

Again, when do people not fall when they are dying and they are standing?  It seems too common of a description to be linked to a specific text.

Edited January 18, 2025 by Calm

[JarMan]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Just because they used the word doesn't really matter.  It is that the killing described in the Book of Mormon doesn't sound like a burning at the stake unless you are expecting it to be there.  Why would the Grotius (or whoever is the author) be so circumspect?  Why not be obvious that it is burning at the stake?  The Book of Mormon says "And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death And now when the flames began to scorch him, he cried unto them, saying:".  That doesn't sound like a normal burning at the stake.  It sounds like they are beating him with sticks that were on fire.

The word "fagots" is important here. It's a bundle of sticks, not several unbundled sticks. One of the other keys here is the word "scourged" which, as you point out, basically means to whip. Skousen makes a very good case that the word here should be "scorched" but was misheard by the scribe. And then there's Mosiah 17: 14 "And now when the flames began to scorch him..." Clearly he's being consumed by fire here. And then there's verses 15, 18, and 20: "death by fire" not "death by beating."

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

I took a look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs (at here https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/index.php) and all the places that mention fagots in relation to burning are all pretty obvious that the person is being burned at the stake.  It mentions stakes, piles of wood to burn on, starting the fire at the feet, etc.  Why would Grotius also not be obvious?

It is obvious. Very obvious. After all, Foxe didn't use the word stake in every account. And the classical elements are there in the Book of Mormon story as I've already mentioned. We have 1) a heretic, 2) who's bound, 3) burned, 4) using fagots, 5) after declining the chance to recant, 6) who gives a speech from the flames.

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again, when do people not fall when they are dying and they are standing?  It seems too common of a description to be linked to a specific text.

I'm not linking it to a specific text. I'm linking it to a specific method of execution.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JarMan said:

think it is the same thing. After all, it does not say that he fell to the earth.

You claim they have to be dependent because of not only the description, but the order.  But when others point out the description or order isn’t the same, you wave away the differences in description as if they don’t matter.  
 

It doesn’t say someone is tied up….doesn’t matter because you choose to assume that is the only way it could happen.  But it’s not as they could force him to stay in the flames by the fire being in a pit.  The fact that the martyr only bowed forward is important as demonstrated by webbles because he requests to only be bound at the waist, so he just bends forwards and does not fall on the ground….but you think it is the same thing.

I don’t think it is the same thing.  It matters a lot to me that my mother fell to the ground when she died and was not just sitting and slumped forward or better, I could say she died peacefully in her bed.   

 

[webbles]

1 minute ago, JarMan said:

The word "fagots" is important here. It's a bundle of sticks, not several unbundled sticks. One of the other keys here is the word "scourged" which, as you point out, basically means to whip. Skousen makes a very good case that the word here should be "scorched" but was misheard by the scribe. And then there's Mosiah 17: 14 "And now when the flames began to scorch him..." Clearly he's being consumed by fire here. And then there's verses 15, 18, and 20: "death by fire" not "death by beating."

It is obvious. Very obvious. After all, Foxe didn't use the word stake in every account. And the classical elements are there in the Book of Mormon story as I've already mentioned. We have 1) a heretic, 2) who's bound, 3) burned, 4) using fagots, 5) after declining the chance to recant, 6) who gives a speech from the flames.

I grew up thinking that he was burned at the stake and as soon as it was pointed out to me that the text doesn't actually say that, it became really obvious that it wasn't a burning at the stake.  If Grotius wanted to write about a burning at a stake, I would expect it to be more obvious, like what is done in Foxe's.  It doesn't have to have the word stake in it, but all of the ones I've read in Foxe are really obvious that it is a burning at the stake.

So, no, it isn't very obvious.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The word "fagots" is important here. It's a bundle of sticks, not several unbundled sticks. One of the other keys here is the word "scourged" which, as you point out, basically means to whip. Skousen makes a very good case that the word here should be "scorched" but was misheard by the scribe. And then there's Mosiah 17: 14 "And now when the flames began to scorch him..." Clearly he's being consumed by fire here. And then there's verses 15, 18, and 20: "death by fire" not "death by beating."

Have you ever heard of birching?  Read about it eons ago in some novel, didn’t know the name.  Abinadi’s death always made me think of that story once the beating/scourging was pointed out.

Not that hard to light them on fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birching

There is also the practice of death by firebrand, which is a closer method of execution to the description in the text than burning at the stake and apparently common to both locations people believe the BoM took place in.

https://rsc.byu.edu/abinadi/ethnohistorical-sources-death-abinadi

Quote

We propose that his death was not simply a result of being “burned at the stake” per se, but rather was a consequence of an extended process of torture over time by continual beatings with lit firebrands.[1] We provide a historical basis for precisely this type of killing of prisoners through an examination of ethnohistorical, linguistic, iconographic, and archaeological sources from both North and Central America—two areas in the New World where evidence for this type of ritualized killing is now known. 

Quote

More than just singeing the skin, many accounts make it clear that the firebrands were also used to scourge the individual (cf. Mosiah 17:13). In Town Creek, North Carolina, Coe describes the torture by local Native Americans of “miserable captives with fire in various ways, and causing or forcing them to run the gauntlet naked, chunked and beat almost to death with burning chunks and fire-brands, and at last burnt to ashes” (emphasis added).[30] In one instance, the Seneca relentlessly beat a prisoner with firebrands as they had him run through the village.[31]

In 1736, Adair recorded several of the methods of Chickasaw torture. He states captives were “tied to the dreadful stake, one at a time.” The Chickasaw would then prepare “for the dreadful rejoicing, a long bundle of dry canes, or the heart of fat pitch-pine, and as the victims [were] lead to the stake, the women and their young ones beat them with these in a most barbarous manner” (emphasis added), leading to their eventual demise.[32]

What becomes clear from these highly detailed accounts is the care given to ensure captives did not die too soon in order to intentionally prolong their agony. Furthermore, striking captives with burning firebrands and heated metal objects was a key component of this ritualized torture. It is therefore import

Fun times

Quote

 

In ancient Maya hieroglyphic writing, one of the syllables for “ta” is acrophonically derived from the logograph TAJ, “pine-wood torch.” Indeed, the sign itself is a bound faggot of pine splinters with flame volutes emerging from the top, first identified as such by Campbell.[40] Bound splinters of pine have been traditionally used as torches for millennia in Mesoamerica. Anciently, Aztec and Maya homes were primarily lit by pine torches. Early Classic Maya paintings on walls of the Jolja’ cave show pine torches being used in caves themselves.[41] Archaeological finds in caves further substantiate their use dating back to the Early Classic period in several dozens of caves.[42] Gann also reports that the Maya of the Yucatan and Belize used pine torches secured to their hats for hunting both land and water animals.[43]

Firebrands for the ancient Maya were made of bundles of highly flammable pine splinters, which were closely connected to ritual practice as part of ceremonial paraphernalia.[44] Pine firebrands were also commonly associated with the burning of incense, as well as the burning of captives. At the site of Tohcok in Campeche, a mural on a doorjamb depicts a captive lying dead, face down on a large, spiked incense burner (fig. 2).[45] He is disemboweled, and pine torches are shown in flames on his back.

 

Disemboweled victim lying over a spiked incense burner with pine torches burning on his back (doorjamb painting from Tohcok, Campeche, redrawn by Asa Hull after Taube 1998: fig.12.5a).

Quote

 

Another example of a disemboweled individual has remarkable parallels to the details prophesied by Abinadi. The figurine from the island of Jaina in Campeche (K2826)[46] depicts a man screaming out both in pain from the disembowelment and also for the fact that he has wood (perhaps pine) sticks strapped to his back in preparation for immolation. Abinadi prophesied to Noah and his people that they would “have burdens lashed upon their backs” (Mosiah 12:5, emphasis added) and that they would “suffer . . . the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:18). The “lashing” of the “burdens”[47] (possibly fire sticks[48]) to their backs could be an allusion to a death similar to that depicted by this Jaina figurine.

The consistent appearance of pine and pine torches in scenes of firebrand torture is significant. The Aztecs used specifically pine sticks for their flogging punishments.[49] It is important to note that pine torches are resinous and were often soaked in additional resin to ensure they would burn longer.[50]Furthermore, pine torches drip pitch as they burn, which adds a further element of pain when considered in the context of scourging—the introduction of hot pine pitch into open wounds and burns.[51] If pine torches were those used on Abinadi, which is highly likely in light of the ethnographic record, then his wounds may too have had increased trauma from heated, dripping pine pitch.

 

Edited January 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

. Torches have been around, well, forever. In fact torches have been around longer than we have. Somewhere in the far distant past, one of our proto human ancestors picked up a burning branch from a wildfire and lit his way down the dark path to the future. The basic torch has changed very little since then. However, man, never satisfied with the basic model of anything, tried many variations and improvements along the way. The first improvement was probably when some one discovered that a large pine knot full of hardened sap would burn longer than a plain branch.  After that it would have been an easy step to experiment with other methods of making torches last longer. One early method was to wrap the head of the torch in a loose weave of plant fibers and then soak that in animal fat.

Another type of torch was the “bundle” type.  This type of torch consisted of a number of thin twigs, reeds, plant stalks, whatever bound together tightly.  Again, the business end was soaked in some type of flammable substance

Love this is a high school tech website, had to use it…..the Church should have taught this in Boy Scouts, but maybe they were nervous someone might try and reenact Abinadi’s death for channeling Mythbusters or something (as in see if it would really work and light a camp on fire, if not a scout).

https://hstech.org/how-to-tech/sfx-efx/fire-part-iv/

The bundle type of torch is historical.   The next step of beating someone with it for torture is easily imagined…unfortunately.

Bundle of sticks torch used for 1994 Olympics:

https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/348096406863021-lillehammers-morgedal-flame-pinewood-relay-torchone-of-three-used-for-norways-1994-winter-olympics/
 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2025 by Calm

[JarMan]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I grew up thinking that he was burned at the stake and as soon as it was pointed out to me that the text doesn't actually say that, it became really obvious that it wasn't a burning at the stake.  If Grotius wanted to write about a burning at a stake, I would expect it to be more obvious, like what is done in Foxe's.  It doesn't have to have the word stake in it, but all of the ones I've read in Foxe are really obvious that it is a burning at the stake.

So, no, it isn't very obvious.

I think I've read every account in Foxe. Spend some more time reading through them and it will become obvious. All the context clues are there with Abinadi to convincingly tell us what is going on.