are the language similarities bogus?

Yes.

Only linguists trained in comparative linguistics can make valid comparisons of similarities between languages and conclude that they indicate common origin. It is very easy to make up lists of similarities, especially in vocabulary, between unrelated languages. It proves nothing. Ethan Smith was not trained in linguistics.

See my discussion of this problem (with links) at http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#VOCABULARY

Richard
(4 yrs graduate study in comparative and historical linguistics)

It used to be the "conventional wisdom" that the Indians were descendents of Hebrews. This was not made up by JS but was part of the popular culture of his time. It was tied in to the "Mound Builder's Myth." about two ancient civilizations, one of which was culturally advanced and created the great mounds in Ohio and other places. The story went that they were the advanced civilization and the "savage" Indians wiped them out.

Therefore a lot of effort was made by amateurs to show that the Indian languages were derived from Hebrew. Lots of lists of similar words were drawn up etc. but modern linguists have definitely placed the Amerind languages in a no-relation-to-Hebrew category.

Here is one version of the "Mound Builder's Myth" as stated in Ethan Smith's VIEW OF THE HEBREWS (1825 edition, pp 172-73):

"The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving in this continent with some knowledge of the acts of civilized life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the best game, inviting them to chase; most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted from each other, lost each other, and formed separate tribes. Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts; and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted relics of civilization discovered in the west and south were furnished. But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more civilized brethren. And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all were left in an "outcast" savage state. This accounts for their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of navigation, and of the use of iron. And such a loss can no more operate against their being of the ten tribes, then against their being of any other origin. Yea, we cannot so well account for their evident degeneracy in any other way, as that it took place under a vindictive Providence, as has been noted, to accomplish divine judgments denounced against the idolatrous ten tribes of Israel.

"It is highly probable that the more civilized part of the tribes of Israel, after they settled in America, became wholly separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their brethren; that the latter lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family with themselves; that the more civilized part continued for many centuries; that tremendous wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren, till the former became extinct."


Kinda reads like a "ground plan" for the Book of Mormon, doesn't it?

Only conventional wisdom? It was more like revelation th at native americans are the lamanites. Even the original introduction of the BOM insisted that. One Navajo elder on my mission quickly shot up the ranks to AP.

DNA is now conclusive that this revelation or folklore is false. I wonder if mormonism can hold up to more emerging scientific evidences.

Book of abraham had already failed the egyptology test.

mostcorrectedbook said "I wonder if mormonism can hold up to more emerging scientific evidences."

Mormonism ignores scientific evidence.

Mormonism has already collapsed but Mormons keep it propped up with apologetics and denial. It is a cartoon religion with a cartoon founder. They don't like reality so they replace it with pure fantasy.

:) You're right. I keep forgetting that denial trumps evidence.

I'm talking about what was the "conventional wisdom" of the culture that JS grew up in. The BOM didn't invent the idea that the Indians were descended from Hebrews. It was something that was "in the air" already.

An interesting echo of that idea is in the movie CAT BALLOU. One of the characters is an Indian and his boss, a white guy, talks about how stubborn he was. The boss brought a rabbi out who spoke Hebrew to the Indian "for a full twenty minutes, by my watch" and the Indian pretended not to understand any of it, "now that's STUBBORN!"

It was not a rabbi, but "Mr. Bernstein the telegraph operator" and it was only for 10 minutes. But, hey, I haven't seen it for 20 years.

The Cat Ballou scene starts at about 9:30--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCJuP04lRhk

Thank you, all.

I've been perusing it and realizing that to a TBM this would actually be corroborating evidence and not suspiciously similar to the BoM as I perceive it...

I suspected Ethan was a blowhard. Glad to hear that there is much more to the issues at hand (which I suspected--how much did they know about athropology anyway!).