What are the Jaredites for?
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:22 pm
As a result of reading discussions of such matters as the Jaredite barges, I have been asking myself what (in the mind of whatever early 19th century American who composed it) was the function of the Jaredite narrative as part of the Book of Mormon.
The Jardeite story has several parallels with main (Nephite) narrative of the Book of Mormon: the journey of the Jaredites is motivated by an Old World catastrophe (the Confusion of Tongues) just like the destruction of Jerusalem in the main story. The Jaredites cross the sea to a land of promise in boats provided with special technology (the dish-like build of the barges, the light-stones) like the Liahona of the Nephites. They have kings (and worries about whether they should have them) and prophecies of Christ. They have problems with 'secret combinations' like the later Nephite difficulties with the Gadianton robbers. All of them but one are wiped out in a final battle, just like the Nephites and Moroni.
Yet the whole thing ends very implausibly (only one Jaredite left alive after the final battle: not likely), and has a weak and artificial connection with the main story - Coriantumr's 9-month stay with the people of Zarahemla before his death, the strange 'stone' with records on it.
To me it looks very like an early attempt at a complete 'Book of Mormon' style narrative. Could it be that the 19th century author (Smith or someone else) produced this material as a first try at giving a 'biblical' origin of the native people and cultures of North America, but in the end found that it would not do the job so well as having some real Jews turning up, and so wiped out the Jaredites through the device of the final battle with Shiz?
He was however reluctant to waste either the text he had composed, or to lose the narrative devices he had constructed. So he linked the text in with his new Nephite narrative, and repeated quite a few of his ideas with variations in his story of the Nephites.
Do we know, by the way, whether the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon was actually written down in the order in which it now stands?
This discussion is of course founded on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century document. Those who believe otherwise are under no obligation to take part.
The Jardeite story has several parallels with main (Nephite) narrative of the Book of Mormon: the journey of the Jaredites is motivated by an Old World catastrophe (the Confusion of Tongues) just like the destruction of Jerusalem in the main story. The Jaredites cross the sea to a land of promise in boats provided with special technology (the dish-like build of the barges, the light-stones) like the Liahona of the Nephites. They have kings (and worries about whether they should have them) and prophecies of Christ. They have problems with 'secret combinations' like the later Nephite difficulties with the Gadianton robbers. All of them but one are wiped out in a final battle, just like the Nephites and Moroni.
Yet the whole thing ends very implausibly (only one Jaredite left alive after the final battle: not likely), and has a weak and artificial connection with the main story - Coriantumr's 9-month stay with the people of Zarahemla before his death, the strange 'stone' with records on it.
To me it looks very like an early attempt at a complete 'Book of Mormon' style narrative. Could it be that the 19th century author (Smith or someone else) produced this material as a first try at giving a 'biblical' origin of the native people and cultures of North America, but in the end found that it would not do the job so well as having some real Jews turning up, and so wiped out the Jaredites through the device of the final battle with Shiz?
He was however reluctant to waste either the text he had composed, or to lose the narrative devices he had constructed. So he linked the text in with his new Nephite narrative, and repeated quite a few of his ideas with variations in his story of the Nephites.
Do we know, by the way, whether the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon was actually written down in the order in which it now stands?
This discussion is of course founded on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century document. Those who believe otherwise are under no obligation to take part.