The War Chapters in Alma

[_consiglieri]

I find the Jockers, Criddle, et al, study unpersuasive.

Of course. You have been taught from your childhood that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of your faith. And you are an exception from the usual LDS, in that you believe that many LDS are heretics (at the least) from the best of that book. For that reason, I count you as my friend.

I count you as my friend, too, MCB.

In this case, however, I have actually examined the studies and the responses thereto and have come to the independent conclusion that the Jockers study is flawed and that the Mormons get the best of this particular argument.

Even a blind squirrel may now and then find an acorn.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_MCB]

Even a blind squirrel may now and then find an acorn.

Acorns in the Book of Mormon come from the mighty oak of the Bible.

[_consiglieri]

I also wanted to add that I am not advancing the subject of the complexity and internal consistency of the war chapters as evidence of Book of Mormon "truthiness."

I was hoping instead to discuss it simply as a narrative with no implications as to ancientness or authenticity.

I know my reference in the OP to "pulling it out of the hat" may have belied this sentiment, and I hereby retract it for purposes of this discussion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_MCB]

Those war chapters were obviously not pulled out of a hat. I agree, they are some of the best. Have you ever read Maccabees?

[_Uncle Dale]

I also wanted to add that I am not advancing the subject of the complexity and internal consistency of the war chapters as evidence of Book of Mormon "truthiness."

I was hoping instead to discuss it simply as a narrative with no implications as to ancientness or authenticity.

I know my reference in the OP to "pulling it out of the hat" may have belied this sentiment, and I hereby retract it for purposes of this discussion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

One possibility would be to ask yourself which passages/paragraphs
could be removed from, say, Alma 44 to the end, without greatly
affecting the basic story.

Which passages appear to stand aloof from the rest of the narrative,
so that we might conclude that the remainder of the text does not
"know" the content of those exotic passages?

If that task can be accomplished, then I'd guess that we would have
some likely candidates for the label of "late insertions."

I'd also guess that the authorship "signal" for those possible insertions
would be different from the remainder of the "wars text," no matter
what names we might conclude to assign to various Alma chapters.

UD

[_consiglieri]

Those war chapters were obviously not pulled out of a hat. I agree, they are some of the best. Have you ever read Maccabees?

Yes. I have read all of The Apocrypha, which I understand was present in the Joseph Smith family Bible.

Are there any military strategies from Maccabees that you see in the Book of Mormon? I haven't really looked at it from that angle, though I seem to recall the name "Nephi" showing up in one of the other books.

The thing I remember most about Maccabees was the guy getting fried up in the giant-sized skillet.

Or something like that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

One possibility would be to ask yourself which passages/paragraphs
could be removed from, say, Alma 44 to the end, without greatly
affecting the basic story.

Which passages appear to stand aloof from the rest of the narrative,
so that we might conclude that the remainder of the text does not
"know" the content of those exotic passages?

If that task can be accomplished, then I'd guess that we would have
some likely candidates for the label of "late insertions."

I'd also guess that the authorship "signal" for those possible insertions
would be different from the remainder of the "wars text," no matter
what names we might conclude to assign to various Alma chapters.

UD

Hi, Uncle Dale! So good to see you! I hope you are well.

The first instance of such a "late insertion" that jumps to mind is Alma 45, especially 2-14, where Alma prophesies to his son, Helaman, regarding the Nephites becoming extinct 400-years after Jesus shows up. Alma tells Helaman this is to be kept secret and not to be revealed to anybody until the time of its fulfillment.

It is obvious this would have to be a "late insertion" by its very description.

Other than this, the war narrative seems to hold together all the way through to Alma 62:41 with no other passages I can immediately identify standing "aloof" from the rest of the story. It is all of a piece, as far as I can tell.

Did you have any in mind?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Ludd]

The thing I remember most about Maccabees was the guy getting fried up in the giant-sized skillet.

Or something like that.

Were there onions, too?

[_Ludd]

Hi, Uncle Dale! So good to see you! I hope you are well.

The first instance of such a "late insertion" that jumps to mind is Alma 45, especially 2-14, where Alma prophesies to his son, Helaman, regarding the Nephites becoming extinct 400-years after Jesus shows up. Alma tells Helaman this is to be kept secret and not to be revealed to anybody until the time of its fulfillment.

It is obvious this would have to be a "late insertion" by its very description.

Other than this, the war narrative seems to hold together all the way through to Alma 62:41 with no other passages I can immediately identify standing "aloof" from the rest of the story. It is all of a piece, as far as I can tell.

Did you have any in mind?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yeah, I never thought that was much of a "prophecy". Kind of like D&C 87 in the middle of the Nullification Crisis.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yeah, I never thought that was much of a "prophecy". Kind of like D&C 87 in the middle of the Nullification Crisis.

Yep. That was not much of a stretch for the prophet. Who knew that you agreed with a fuckwad? I may have to reconsider my opinion of you.