Showing that
she is ignorant of literary theory and evaluating textual parallels, and
instead, thinks parallelomania is a valid methodology, Christian Darlington
wrote the following about the claim View
of the Hebrews and other 19th century works were used by Joseph
Smith to produce the Book of Mormon:
While Joseph Smith drew from the ideas in
these books when he was creating his Book of Mormon stories, no single story
retold in the Book of Mormon is reiterated exactly as it was in these books.
For example, the story of Samuel, the Lamanite Prophet, given in Helaman 13-16
of the Book of Mormon, is similar to the story of Jesus, son of Ananus, found on
page 20 of the View of the Hebrews,
who climbed upon the city wall to preach “Wo, woe to this city” while stones
were thrown at him. While the character in the View of the Hebrews died from his wounds, Samuel the Lamanite was
protected from the stones and survived. The fact that differences such as these
exist is not surprising as Joseph Smith could not have sold his book if he didn’t
change some of the details for his audience who were familiar with these books.
So, differences do not discount the evidence that he likely drew ideas from
these sources. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided
by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 80)
Obviously,
Darlington’s idea of “evidence” is not the usual understanding of “evidence.”
Here is the discussion of Jesus, son of Ananus, in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews:
The last and most fearful sign Josephus
relates; that one Jesus, son of Ananus, a rustic of the lower class, appeared
in the temple at the feast of tabernacles, and suddenly exclaimed, "A voice from the east--a voice from
the west--a voice from the four winds--a voice against Jerusalem and the
temple--a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides--a voice against the
whole people!" These words he continued to exclaim through the streets
of Jerusalem by day and by night, with no cessation (unless what was needed for
the support of nature) for seven years!
He commenced in the year 63, while the city was in peace and prosperity, and
terminated his exclamations only in his death, amidst the horrors of the siege,
in the year 70. This strange thing, when it commenced, soon excited great
attention; and this Jesus was brought before Albinus, the Roman governor, who
interrogated him, but could obtain no answer except the continuation of his
woes. He commanded him to be scourged, but to no effect. During times of
festivals, this cry of his was peculiarly loud and urgent. After the
commencement of the siege, he ascended the walls, and in a voice still more
tremendous than ever, he exclaimed, "Wo, wo to this city, this temple, and
this people!" And he then added, (for the first time for the seven years,)
"Wo, wo to myself!" The
words were no sooner uttered, than a stone from a Roman machine without the walls,
struck him dead on the spot! (Ethan Smith, View
of the Hebrews [2d ed.; Poultney, Va.: Smith and Schute, 1825], 25-26 [Darlington may be using a different printing of the book, thus the page difference in pagination numbers])
In
Darlington’s view, Joseph had to plagiarise from Ethan Smith’s book to come up
with the idea of someone climbing a wall and speaking from it, which is utterly
absurd. Using her “logic,” the creators of Monty Python plagiarised from Ethan
Smith’s View of the Hebrews and its
account of Jesus, son of Ananus, in their “prophets scene” (I mean, prophets on a wall calling people to repentance for Darlington is enough to "prove" literary dependency[!]):
Any differences,
remember, are due to John Cleese et al., knowing that they had to cover their
tracks so their audience would not “catch on” from pilfering from Ethan Smith.
Something
that Darlington does not tell her readers (whether out of deception or
ignorance, I will let the reader of this post decide for themselves) is that in
the 1 and 15 June 1842 issues of the Times and Seasons, there appeared printed
extracts from Josiah Priest's book, American Antiquities (1838 ed.), which cites
and quotes rather favourably passages from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews at
a time when Joseph was the editor of the publication. Here is one quote:
If such may have been the fact, that a part
of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving
the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would
be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along
countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an
extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes
having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney,
Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable
character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in
1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on
a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill). (Times
and Seasons, vol 3, No. 15, pp. 813-14)
This begs a
question: if Joseph plagiarised from View of the Hebrews, why would he risk
drawing attention to it by publicly quoting from Priest's book which contained
extracts of View of the Hebrews? If Joseph was indeed a plagiarist, he was the
dumbest plagiarist on record.
For a meaningful discussion on evaluating parallels between texts, see the articles by Benjamin L. McGuire:
Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One
Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part Two
See also his:
The Late War against the Book of Mormon
My friend Stephen Smoot has a blog post refuting Jeremy Runnell's on this issue:
Does Helaman 13–16 Plagiarize View of the Hebrews?
