Julius Caesar in the Book of Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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

The first is on page 173. But it isn't a commentary on the Book of Enoch per se - it is a comment on the text of Jude 1:14-15. Here is the text:

.............. translation or commentary of Enoch.

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

John Dee (1527-1508) was used as the model for the magus Prospero by Shakespeare in "The Tempest."  Cf. John Dee’s “Book of Enoch” (1583 Sloane MS 3189, British Library), and Ludovico Lazzarelli’s Epistola Enoch.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

So it seems Grotius accepted Enoch as authoritative and credible, but believed it was added to and became confused and obscure. Only slightly different from scripture being lost or having things taken away

Let's step back a second (because it is necessary with Grotius). Grotius believes that there may well have been an original Enoch text, cited by Jude in the New Testament. He does not think that the fragments that were known in Scaliger were that text. But, he also doesn't believe that the text of Enoch (whatever it was) was central to the New Testament gospel. It is this last part that is important - because 1 Nephi 13 suggests that not only is the missing stuff essential, but that it was deliberately removed in order to corrupt the gospel message. And the differences here do matter.

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

This is germane to the OP so I'll respond. Let's pretend this was happening in reverse--that somebody was claiming the Nephite fortifications pointed toward authorship from Joseph Smith's milieu because of the similarities. I come along and show the Julius Caesar fortifications, which are clearly a closer match. This would undermine the original claim. I could argue that any similarities are purely coincidental since I can demonstrate another place where the parallels are much better. But this doesn't work in reverse. You can't show worse parallels and claim that undermines the original claim. I play a yellow 11 and then you play a yellow 6 and want to take the trick.

I don't disagree with you. The challenge of course, is the question of which parallels are better and which are worse. The grading of parallels requires using some sort of methodological evaluation process that is relatively transparent and which can equally be assigned to all of the parallels that are suggested.

 

[Zosimus]

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let's step back a second (because it is necessary with Grotius). Grotius believes that there may well have been an original Enoch text, cited by Jude in the New Testament. He does not think that the fragments that were known in Scaliger were that text. But, he also doesn't believe that the text of Enoch (whatever it was) was central to the New Testament gospel. It is this last part that is important - because 1 Nephi 13 suggests that not only is the missing stuff essential, but that it was deliberately removed in order to corrupt the gospel message. And the differences here do matter.

As mentioned earlier, I don't believe Grotius to be the source for any romanisms, latinisms, or classicisms in the Book of Mormon. If there are any early modern elements in the Book of Mormon, I don't see why we can't place them closer in time and place to Joseph Smith. After all, Harris met with America's leading classicist a month before translation of the Book of Lehi began.

In 1828 Charles Anthon examined the characters taken from the gold plates and confirmed that they were authentic. Samuel Mitchill then sanctioned what Anthon had said "respecting both the characters and the translation" (source). If two of America's leading academics had truly endorsed the gold plate characters as authentic, we should expect they both would want to understand and discuss how those ancient characters ended up in an American Indian context.

If we're discussing the potential influence of classical texts like the Gallic Wars on the Book of Mormon then I'd suggest the better starting point would be the meeting between Martin Harris and America's leading classicist in February 1828. For example, what information did Anthon share with Harris that Mitchill later sanctioned?

On 1/6/2025 at 11:52 AM, JarMan said:

I've pointed out Romanisms in the Book of Mormon before, but this is a really obvious one. What's staggering here is not just the similarities, but the order in which they are listed. The second passage is from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.

How did that find it's way into Alma?

If anything from the works of Caesar finds its way into Alma, I'd say its more likely to have come through Charles Anthon than Grotius. Charles Anthon was at that time America's leading expert on such things.

Books by Charles Anthon, 1797-1867

In 1822, 1825 and 1827, Charles Anthon published revised editions of "A classical dictionary; containing a copious account of all the proper names mentioned in ancient authors; with the value of coins, weights and measures, used among the Greeks and Romans; and a chronological table". He would also later translate and publish the text discussed in the OP, Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.

According to Harris and Joseph Smith, in 1828 Anthon examined the gold plate characters and certified them (with a certificate) that they were true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters.

Edited January 31, 2025 by Zosimus

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

If anything from the works of Caesar finds its way into Alma, I'd say its more likely to have come through Charles Anthon than Grotius. Charles Anthon was at that time America's leading expert on such things.

By itself, Caesar in the Book of Mormon doesn't necessarily point to an early modern origin. It does, however, undermine the faithful narrative of its origins. I will say, though, that the early modern world was much more attuned to the classical world than Joseph Smith's world. The standard early modern curriculum had Latin and Greek and the ancient writings in those languages at its very foundation. By Joseph's time these were merely a specialty area of study.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

By itself, Caesar in the Book of Mormon

And the challenge for me is that I really, really do not see Caesar in the Book of Mormon ... any sound methodology used for such a comparison, I believe, will agree with that assessment.

[Anonymous Mormon]

@JarMan - I have read a number of your different posts on this forum and also skimmed your video and other links you have sent.

I am trying to wrap my head around your overall belief of the history of the Book of Mormon. Do I understand it correctly that you think someone other than Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and did so hundreds of years before his time. And then somehow Joseph got ahold of this and publish it?  Please clarify your hypothesis.

Also, in your variety of posts you link to all kind of ancient Roman records / writings that the Book of Mormon parallels. Are you saying that whomever wrote the Book of Mormon did so based upon reading these old records / writings? If so, can you provide a full bibliography of the current list of all publications you think that the book of Mormon was based upon?

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from on this.

[JarMan]

On 2/7/2025 at 11:35 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

@JarMan - I have read a number of your different posts on this forum and also skimmed your video and other links you have sent.

I am trying to wrap my head around your overall belief of the history of the Book of Mormon. Do I understand it correctly that you think someone other than Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and did so hundreds of years before his time. And then somehow Joseph got ahold of this and publish it?  Please clarify your hypothesis.

Yep.

On 2/7/2025 at 11:35 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

Also, in your variety of posts you link to all kind of ancient Roman records / writings that the Book of Mormon parallels. Are you saying that whomever wrote the Book of Mormon did so based upon reading these old records / writings? If so, can you provide a full bibliography of the current list of all publications you think that the book of Mormon was based upon?

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from on this.

Off the top of my head, the Roman historiographical sources include Sallust's Histories (Pompey's letter/Moroni's letter), the Catilinarian Conspiracy (Catiline as a Gadianton Robber); Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (the fortifications I've discussed); Tacitus' Annals (Tacfarinas as a Gadianton Robber); Plutarch's Parallel Lives (Scipio Africanus as a type for Captain Moroni). In a very general sense I also see mythical similarities with the Aeneid.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 2/7/2025 at 11:35 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

@JarMan - I have read a number of your different posts on this forum and also skimmed your video and other links you have sent.

I am trying to wrap my head around your overall belief of the history of the Book of Mormon. Do I understand it correctly that you think someone other than Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and did so hundreds of years before his time. And then somehow Joseph got ahold of this and publish it?  Please clarify your hypothesis.

...

Thanks for helping me understand where you are coming from on this.

 

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

Yep.

@JarMan

I am super intrigued by your hypothesis, but have more questions than answers:

• What Roman do you think wrote the Book of Mormon?
• How did Roman writings end up in upstate New York?
• How did Joseph Smith get hold of their writings? 
• How did he translate them (or who translated them)?
• Was Joseph Smith guided by God in the process or was it just luck when treasure hunting?

Again, I am trying to wrap my head around your idea. If you already laid it out in detail in another thread and want to just link it, I am happy to read there.

 

Also, I am sorry to hear you have been dealing with health issues recently. I hope that you are doing better and will offer some prayers your way.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

 

@JarMan

I am super intrigued by your hypothesis, but have more questions than answers:

• What Roman do you think wrote the Book of Mormon?
• How did Roman writings end up in upstate New York?
• How did Joseph Smith get hold of their writings? 
• How did he translate them (or who translated them)?
• Was Joseph Smith guided by God in the process or was it just luck when treasure hunting?

Again, I am trying to wrap my head around your idea. If you already laid it out in detail in another thread and want to just link it, I am happy to read there.

 

Also, I am sorry to hear you have been dealing with health issues recently. I hope that you are doing better and will offer some prayers your way.

Hy hypothesis is the Book of Mormon was written about 1635-1645 by Hugo Grotius. All the Roman sources show up because Grotius was, among other things, a historian with deep knowledge of Roman historiography. It was translated into English shortly thereafter. My hypothesis does not address how the manuscript eventually came into Joseph's possession.

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Hy hypothesis is the Book of Mormon was written about 1635-1645 by Hugo Grotius. All the Roman sources show up because Grotius was, among other things, a historian with deep knowledge of Roman historiography. It was translated into English shortly thereafter. My hypothesis does not address how the manuscript eventually came into Joseph's possession.

OK, so I have so many more questions on this:

• So do you believe that some how Joseph came into possession of a sole manuscript of Grotius? Or did he edit an existing manuscript we still have?
• Do you believe he altered it the text at all? For example, all the references to Christianity, was that all Grotius?
• How do you explain the lost 116 pages? How did Joseph Smith work around those?
• Do you believe that Grotius wrote the prophecies that referenced Joseph Smith (i.e., 2 Ne 3) or did Joseph add those? 
• Do you believe that God inspired Joseph Smith to find Grotius' manuscript or was it just luck?

Thanks!

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

OK, so I have so many more questions on this:

• So do you believe that some how Joseph came into possession of a sole manuscript of Grotius? Or did he edit an existing manuscript we still have?

The original manuscript would likely have been written in Latin, French, or Dutch--the three languages Grotius wrote in. Then it was translated into English soon after. This explains why there is so much the early modern syntax in the original, dictated text. My hypothesis is that sometime before Joseph dictated it it was reworked a little bit, mostly by modernizing vocabulary that had become obsolete. It's possible any of these other manuscripts still exist. It's also possible that the reworked text is the same physical manuscript as the original English translation.

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• Do you believe he altered it the text at all? For example, all the references to Christianity, was that all Grotius?

I've proposed that Joseph added a single sentence in 2 Ne 3:15.

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• How do you explain the lost 116 pages? How did Joseph Smith work around those?

I think the lost 116 pages were part of the original manuscript. I don't know why he decided not to re-dictate them.

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• Do you believe that Grotius wrote the prophecies that referenced Joseph Smith (i.e., 2 Ne 3) or did Joseph add those? 

The only prophecy I believe refers to Joseph Smith is 2 Ne 3:15.

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

• Do you believe that God inspired Joseph Smith to find Grotius' manuscript or was it just luck?

Thanks!

My original hypothesis, when I was a believing member, was that God was behind Grotius' creation of the text and its eventual possession by Joseph. I am now agnostic on how it made it's way to Joseph.

Edited February 16, 2025 by JarMan

[Zosimus]

On 1/18/2025 at 9:44 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, ...

And this also cannot be the Old Testament.

Was reading the most recent paper on MI and was reminded of your post above.

Jeff Lindsay commented on the paper on his blog:

"...the concept of the Lamb of God comes from early Christian times, right (John 1:29, 36, for example)? And so the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon in testifying of the coming of and necessity of the sacrificial Lamb of God are just regurgitating Christian thought, right? It turns out that the Lamb of God that John talks about was likely drawing upon an older Jewish concept. There are at least two very different surviving Jewish documents speaking of that figure. I’m attaching a short note that will accompany a paper by a wonderful Jewish scholar, Dr. Meir Bar-Ilan" 

Here's Dr. Bar-Ilan's paper 

The Heavenly Lamb, Sacrifices on the Heavenly Altar, and the Song of the Lamb

[InCognitus]

Beware the Ides of March.

(If that was in the Book of Mormon, I might believe this thread).