The Book of Mormon's mysterious Amalekites


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, we've gone from us guessing on this forum to reading other people's guesswork.  Is that an improvement?

<shrug> feel free to see if the originals are posted on http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ and do your own handwriting analysis. The article I linked was authored by Royal Skousen and, while much of his research is original, he has published in methodology in the papers and volumes mentioned in the bibliography.

The primary issue being Amlicite/Amalekite, I'm fine with dropping the argument over the identity of "not Oliver" (or Oliver with a different slant, I'm indifferent to it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My opinion:  Generally it is thought that ancient societies were geographically bound or stable.  The discovery of the “Ice Man” dating back to the time of Abraham changed that.  There is mounting evidence that ancient societies traded and traveled far more that what we thought.  The more we discover the more we realize that global travel was both likely and possible.

One possible example appears in the Bible when Hiram (Phoenician king of Tyre) made a gift of about 300 ships to King David of Israel.  Then it is recorded that these ships would leave and return with various things – including peacocks which are from India.  This means that the ships sailed around the tip of Africa.  When the Europeans developed sufficient technology to make that trip within 40 years they accidently ended up in South America.  This means that it is quite possible that king David traded with the Americas.  This would have been before Lehi and would also explain how the Mulekits were able to reach and settle in the Americas.   

Here is my theory.  The Book of Mormon is not historic.  The intent is not to provide a historical record of peoples in the ancient America.  It is a prophetic document given as a “type and shadow” to our time.  There are many historic peoples in the America’s during the time of the Book of Mormon that were not of the House of Israel per say.  It is interesting that there are several indications of a prophet claiming to be a direct descendent of Nephi and Lehi.  One would think that a direct descendent of Lehi would be the majority of the Book of Mormon people.

More theory.  I believe it was possible that Lehi brought more than his family and the family of Ishmael.  If we follow Lehi through the Arabian Peninsula to the land Bountiful where Nephi built a ship we will find an exact match for an ancient port.  Heavily populated and known anciently for ship building.  But the Book of Mormon does not mention any of the natives of that region.   I believe it is possible that a servant class of individuals could have joined the group.  This would help explain the numbers because it could have been possible that when Lehi landed – the house of Israel could have been a minority.   I believe that even during the heights of Book of Mormon peoples – Lehi and his descendants were a minority of peoples – not just in the America’s but even the regions they settled, regularly traveled and traded. 

I am of the mind that trying to figure out the origins of the inhabitants of the America’s using only the Book of Mormon would be less fruitful that trying to figure out the origins of the “Old World” peoples from an exclusive understanding of the Bible.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

<shrug> feel free to see if the originals are posted on http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ and do your own handwriting analysis. The article I linked was authored by Royal Skousen and, while much of his research is original, he has published in methodology in the papers and volumes mentioned in the bibliography.

The primary issue being Amlicite/Amalekite, I'm fine with dropping the argument over the identity of "not Oliver" (or Oliver with a different slant, I'm indifferent to it).

I'll reiterate that I am not clearly sold on any side here.  But my recent point was that while we can see that there was "someone" else who wrote, Skousen was simply guessing as to the additional identities -- despite his expertise.  At least, he offered no evidence or logic otherwise.  So, why is that better than our guesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the comments on this thread have taught me anything, they have taught me that a lot of people have done a lot of thinking on features of the Book of Mormon narrative that I have stumbled upon (or over) and that never get discussed in gospel doctrine class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 9/2/2017 at 8:37 PM, mordorbund said:

This is Royal Skousen's opinion on the subject, that the Amlicites are the Amelekites (as cited here, and here). I don't think they are the same, since the syllable count is consistently off. For additional support for keeping them distinct, and wild guesswork on why we don't have the Amelkite origin story, see here.

I tripped over this old thread a few days ago and looked up mord's links again. Of the three above, only the first and third are still active, and both are worthwhile. The last link is analytical in nature, and I find it provocative and informative. I'll cast my vote with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

I tripped over this old thread a few days ago and looked up mord's links again. Of the three above, only the first and third are still active, and both are worthwhile. The last link is analytical in nature, and I find it provocative and informative. I'll cast my vote with it.

The article in the second link can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2017 at 2:09 PM, Vort said:

An apostate Nephite splinter group called the Amalekites make their appearance in the Book of Mormon narrative, but only in the middle of the book of Alma. Mormon is exceedingly careful to introduce new people and groups before telling about them, but he appears to have missed introducing the Amalekites. A description of their original leader (presumably someone named Amalek or Amaleki) and why he rebelled from the rest of the Nephites are items left to our imagination, because Mormon never breathes a word of it. Instead, we just suddenly have the Amalekites being talked about. Did Mormon forget that he never told us who they were? Did he tell us in a part of the abridgment that he later redacted? No way to know

I'm going to offer my own theory, but it is only a theory and my own.  I haven't seen it anywhere else.  This is just a theory and I'm not saying that I am correct since this is only my best guess.

The Amalekites are also in the Bible and Torah.  They were an enemy to Israel and the Jews.   Although in the Bible some verses indicate that the Amalekites were at one time a specific group of people or nation, in Jewish tradition the words Amalakites came to symbolize any group or people that fought against the Jews.  Thus, over time, in Jewish tradition, the word Amalakites transitioned to be a synonym for "enemy" and the word was applied to any group fighting against Israel and the Jews.

This may indeed be the case in the Book of Mormon as well.  Although it is possible that they were a group of people following someone named Amalek, the word Amalekites could just be another word for enemy, just as it is used as such in Jewish traditions.  If that is indeed the case, the word could be applied to a group of people who were fighting against the Nephites at that time and/or maybe the word was chosen by Mormon for that particular group and they may or may not have called themselves that.  If that was the case, he is only using a word in place of "enemy".  It could have been the Amlicites or maybe a different enemy.   Amalekites could have been a more generic term for enemy, the same as it became so used in Jewish tradition.

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share