Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to View of the Hebrews.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
View of the Hebrews
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
View of the Hebrews is an 1823 book[1] written by Ethan Smith, a Congregationalist minister in Vermont, who argued that Native Americans were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, a relatively common view during the early nineteenth century. Numerous commentators on Mormon history, from LDS Church general authority B. H. Roberts to Fawn M. Brodie, biographer of Joseph Smith, have noted similarities in the content of View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, which was first published in 1830, seven years after Ethan Smith's book.
Key Information
Content
[edit]Ethan Smith suggested that Native Americans were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel; according to Mormon historian Richard Lyman Bushman, this theory was held by many theologians and laymen of his day who tried to fit new populations into what they understood of biblical history, which they felt to encompass the world. These tribes were believed to have disappeared after being taken captive by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE.[2] Mormon historian Terryl Givens calls the work "an inelegant blend of history, excerpts, exhortation, and theorizing."[3]
During Smith's day, speculation about the Ten Lost Tribes was heightened both by a renewed interest in biblical prophecy and by the belief that the aboriginal peoples who had been swept aside by European settlers could not have been the same as the ancient people who created the sophisticated earthwork mounds found throughout the Mississippi Valley and southeastern North America. Smith attempted to rescue Indians from the contemporary myth of mound builders being a separate race by making the indigenous people "potential converts worthy of salvation."[4] "If our natives be indeed from the tribes of Israel," Smith wrote, "American Christians may well feel, that one great object of their inheritance here, is, that they may have a primary agency in restoring those 'lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"[5]
Comparison with the Book of Mormon
[edit]The Book of Mormon shares some thematic elements with View of the Hebrews. Both books quote extensively from the Old Testament prophecies of the Book of Isaiah; describe the future gathering of Israel and restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes; propose the peopling of the New World from the Old (View of the Hebrews via land bridge, The Book of Mormon via ocean voyage); declare a religious motive for the migration; divide the migrants into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized; assume that Native Americans were descended from Israelites and their languages from Hebrew; include a change of government from monarchy to republican; and suggest that the gospel was preached in ancient America.[6]
Early Mormons occasionally cited the View of the Hebrews to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.[7] In the early 20th century, Mormon historian B. H. Roberts noted the parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon and explored the possibility Joseph Smith had used View of the Hebrews as a source in composing the Book of Mormon, or that he was at least influenced by the popular 19th-century ideas expounded in the earlier work.[8] It is unknown whether Joseph Smith had access to View of the Hebrews when he dictated the Book of Mormon in 1829 and 1830; he did quote from View of the Hebrews in 1842.[9]
Oliver Cowdery, who later served as Joseph Smith's scribe for the Book of Mormon, lived in the same small Vermont town as Ethan Smith and may have attended the Congregational church where the latter was pastor for five years. Cowdery may have passed on knowledge of the book to Joseph Smith.[10] Mormon apologists have argued that the parallels between the works are weak or over-emphasized.[11] Larry Morris, a Mormon apologist, has argued that "the theory of an Ethan Smith–Cowdery association is not supported by the documents."[12]
When in 1922 Mormon apologist B. H. Roberts[13] was asked by church leaders to compare View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, he produced a confidential report, later published as Studies of the Book of Mormon, that noted eighteen points of similarity.[14][15]
Fawn M. Brodie, the first important historian to write a non-hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith,[16] proposed that Joseph Smith's theory of the Hebraic origin of the American Indians came "chiefly" from View of the Hebrews. "It may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon," wrote Brodie in 1945, "but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence."[17]
Modern publication
[edit]A photographic reprint of the 1823 edition of View of the Hebrews was published by Arno Press in 1977. The text was published in 1980 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, with an introduction by the latter. In 1985, a scholarly edition of the work was published by University of Illinois Press, and a second edition was published by Signature Books in 1992.[18] Brigham Young University published an edition in 1996.[19]
See also
[edit]
Notes
[edit]- ^ Ethan Smith published a second edition in 1825. BYU Studies; Link to pdf.
- ^ "Although not predominant, the lost tribes theory did appeal to religious thinkers eager to link Indians to the Bible. From the seventeenth century onward, both Christians and Jews had collected evidence that the Indians had Jewish origins. Jonathan Edwards Jr. noted the similarities between the Hebrew and Mohican languages. Such Indian practices as 'anointing their heads, paying a price for their wives, observing the feast of harvest' were cited as Jewish parallels. Besides Edwards, John Eliot, Samuel Sewall, Roger Williams, William Penn, James Adair, and Elias Boudinot expressed opinions or wrote treatises on the Israelite connection." Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 96.
- ^ Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 161.
- ^ Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2004), 123.
- ^ View of the Hebrews Archived June 19, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, 248.
- ^ Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002), 60–64.
- ^ Givens, American Scripture, 96–93.
- ^ Roberts, Richard C. (1992). "View of the Hebrews". In Ludlow, Daniel H (ed.). Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140. Archived from the original on 16 June 2016. Retrieved 1 February 2016.
- ^ Bushman, Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, 2005, p. 96; Joseph Smith, "From Priest's American Antiquities," Times and Seasons (June 1, 1842) 3:813–15.
- ^ Persuitte, Origins of the Book of Mormon, 105–06; Palmer, 59–60.
- ^ Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 83–87, and n.a., A Sure Foundation: Answers to Difficult Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1988), 69–71. John W. Welch, "An Unparallel" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985) is an essay listing 84 differences. Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?"], BYU Studies 5(2) (1964): 105–13. Apologists have also argued that Joseph Smith quoted from View of the Hebrews and would not have brought it to the attention of his followers if he had plagiarized from the book. Joseph Smith, "From Priest's American Antiquities," Times and Seasons (June 1, 1842) 3:813–15.
- ^ Larry E. Morris, "Oliver Cowdery's Vermont Years and the Origins of Mormonism,"BYU Studies 39:1 (2000).
- ^ Roberts was ranked the greatest intellectual in Mormon history in surveys by LDS scholars Leonard Arrington in 1969 and Stan Larson in 1993. Leonard J. Arrington, "The Intellectual Tradition of the Latter-day Saints", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 (Spring 1969), 13–26; Stan Larson, "Intellectuals in Mormonism: An Update", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Fall 1993), 187–89.
- ^ According to Mormon authors, Roberts's study was intended to "preempt criticisms that could be leveled at the Book of Mormon." Ashurst-McGee, Mark (2003). "A One-sided View of Mormon Origins". FARMS Review. 15 (2). Maxwell Institute: 309–64. doi:10.5406/farmsreview.15.2.0309. S2CID 164502393. Archived from the original on 2006-12-08. Retrieved 2006-12-22.. After Roberts's death, copies were made of his report, which "circulated among a limited circle in Utah." (Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 47fn.)
- ^ There has been debate about whether Roberts continued to affirm his faith in the divine origins of the Book of Mormon until his death in 1933. Truman D. Madsen and John W. Welch, Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon? (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985), 27. According to Jack Christensen, less than a month before Roberts died, he told Christensen that Ethan Smith had "played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon," but as Terryl Givens has written, "a lively debate has emerged over whether his personal conviction really remained intact in the aftermath of his academic investigations." Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 110–11. For the view that Roberts found View of the Hebrews so disturbing that he abandoned his faith, see Brigham D. Madsen, "B. H. Roberts' 'Studies of the Book of Mormon,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Fall 1993), 77–86; and "Reflections of LDS Disbelief in the Book of Mormon as History", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30 (Fall 1997), 87–97. In a letter to LDS Church president Heber J. Grant and other church officials, Roberts urged "all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world." December 29, 1921 in Studies of the Book of Mormon, 47. See Brigham D. Madsen, "Reflections on LDS Disbelief in the Book of Mormon as History", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30 (Fall 1997), 87–89.
- ^ "Bernard DeVoto considered it Brodie's distinction 'that she has raised writing about Mormonism to the dignity of history for the first time.'" Givens (2002), By the Hand of Mormon, 162.
- ^ Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2nd ed.,(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 46–47.
- ^ FARMS book review Archived September 5, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Brigham Young University.
- ^ Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, ed. Charles D. Tate Jr., 2nd ed. (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).
Further references
[edit]- Dougherty, Matthew W. (2021). Lost Tribes Found: Israelite Indians and Religious Nationalism in Early America. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806168883.
- Fenton, Elizabeth (2020). Old Canaan in a New World: Native Americans and the Lost Tribes of Israel. North American Religions. New York University Press. ISBN 9781479866366.
External links
[edit]
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
View of the Hebrews
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Authorship and Publication History
Ethan Smith and His Background
Ethan Smith was born on December 19, 1762, in Belchertown, Massachusetts, to Deacon Elijah Smith and Sybil Worthington Smith.[7] As a youth, he served briefly as a soldier in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, spending one summer at West Point around the time of Benedict Arnold's treason in 1780.[8] His family background included religious influences, with his father holding the position of deacon in a Congregational church, reflecting the prevailing New England Puritan heritage.[9] Smith pursued higher education at Dartmouth College, graduating in 1790 amid a period when the institution emphasized classical studies and Calvinist theology.[10] Following graduation, he entered the Congregational ministry, a denomination rooted in Reformed traditions that dominated New England Protestantism. He was ordained and installed as pastor of the Congregational church in Haverhill, New Hampshire, in 1792, marking the start of a career spanning multiple parishes.[10] Over the subsequent decades, Smith held pastorates in several locations, including Hanover, Massachusetts; Hebron, New York (1818–1821); and Poultney, Vermont (1821–1826), where he served the local Congregational church during the publication of View of the Hebrews in 1823.[10] His ministerial work focused on preaching, writing tracts, and engaging in theological debates, consistent with the era's emphasis on biblical exposition and missionary zeal among frontier congregations. Later in life, he continued pastoral duties until his death on August 29, 1849, in Boylston, Massachusetts, at age 86.[7] Smith's writings, including sermons and historical-theological treatises, numbered over a dozen published works, underscoring his productivity as a rural cleric.[7]Original Editions and Revisions
The first edition of View of the Hebrews was published in 1823 by Smith & Shute in Poultney, Vermont, comprising 215 pages and presenting Ethan Smith's core arguments on the Israelite origins of Native Americans through biblical exegesis, historical analogies, and observations of indigenous customs.[1] This edition lacked extensive external quotations, relying primarily on Smith's own scriptural interpretations and limited references to contemporary reports on American antiquities. A second edition appeared in 1825 from the same publisher in Poultney, Vermont, expanded to approximately 285 pages through the addition of numerous quotations from ancient historians, travel accounts, and theological works to bolster claims about Israelite migrations and cultural parallels.[11] These revisions included new material on Hebrew language affinities with Native American dialects and fortified earthworks in the Americas, though the fundamental thesis remained unchanged.[7] No substantive alterations to the original arguments were made, and subsequent printings during Smith's lifetime adhered closely to this revised text without further documented modifications.[5]Modern Reprints and Accessibility
A reproduction of the 1825 second edition of View of the Hebrews was published by the Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center in 1996, edited by Charles D. Tate Jr., providing a faithful textual edition with scholarly apparatus.[12] Facsimile reprints of original editions have been issued by print-on-demand publishers, including Kessinger Publishing's 2007 edition (ISBN 9780548233511), which reproduces the antique text with potential imperfections such as library marks.[13] Additional modern print editions are available through retailers like Amazon (e.g., ISBN 9781163534953) and Barnes & Noble, often as affordable, high-quality reproductions of the public domain original.[14] [15] As a work in the public domain due to its 1823 publication date, View of the Hebrews is widely accessible in digital formats. Scans of the 1823 first edition and 1825 second edition are freely available for download on the Internet Archive, including OCR-searchable PDFs digitized from historical copies.[16] Online repositories such as ScriptureCentral offer accurate digital reproductions of the 1825 edition, facilitating research without physical access.[3] The Online Books Page at the University of Pennsylvania also catalogs and links to multiple digitized versions, enhancing scholarly and public accessibility.[17] These resources, combined with used and new print copies available via platforms like Alibris (starting at approximately $14 for various editions), ensure the text remains obtainable for contemporary readers.[18]Historical Context
Early 19th-Century Millenarianism
In the early 19th century, American Protestantism experienced a surge in millenarian expectations, centered on the anticipated thousand-year reign of Christ foretold in Revelation 20:1–6. This belief, known as millennialism, gained prominence during the Second Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals spanning roughly 1795 to 1835 that emphasized personal conversion, evangelism, and moral reform.[19] Postmillennialism dominated, positing that Christ's return would follow a golden age of Christian influence achieved through human agency, including missionary outreach and societal transformation.[20] These convictions framed America as a divinely appointed stage for prophetic fulfillment, with events like the spread of the gospel to distant lands signaling the millennium's approach. Biblical prophecies of Israel's restoration, drawn from texts such as Isaiah 11, Ezekiel 37, and Romans 11, were interpreted as prerequisites for the end times, requiring the ingathering of scattered tribes before Christ's advent.[12] Congregationalist minister Ethan Smith incorporated this motif into View of the Hebrews (1823), arguing that Native American remnants represented the lost Ten Tribes whose conversion would precipitate millennial events.[1] Smith's work reflected a broader pattern where millenarianism intersected with expansionist zeal, viewing indigenous populations not merely as evangelistic targets but as actors in eschatological drama, with their assimilation into Christianity hastening divine timelines. This eschatology spurred practical initiatives, including missions to Native Americans, as seen in efforts by groups like the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, founded in 1810.[21] Yet, postmillennial optimism coexisted with interpretive variances; while some emphasized gradual progress, others, influenced by recent upheavals like the Napoleonic Wars, anticipated imminent premillennial intervention.[22] Smith's synthesis prioritized scriptural literalism over speculative chronologies, grounding claims in historical analogies to ancient Israel's dispersions and returns, though reliant on contemporary travelogues and antiquarian reports of indigenous customs. Such millenarian fervor, while theologically unifying, often overlooked empirical inconsistencies in favor of prophetic harmonization.Contemporary Theories of Native American Origins
In the early decades of the 19th century, scholarly and popular debates on Native American origins encompassed a range of hypotheses, reflecting both biblical literalism and nascent scientific inquiry. Among religious and millenarian circles in the United States, the theory that Native Americans descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel—exiled following the Assyrian conquest around 722 BCE—held significant sway, drawing on perceived affinities in customs, language, and ancient ruins. Proponents cited Hebrew-like names, tribal structures, and rituals such as purification practices as evidence, with James Adair's 1775 History of the American Indians providing detailed anthropological comparisons, including over 20 alleged linguistic parallels to Hebrew. Elias Boudinot's 1816 Star in the West further popularized this view by compiling scriptural prophecies and traveler accounts, arguing that Israelite migration across the Pacific fulfilled biblical narratives of dispersion. This Hebraic theory, rooted in earlier works like Manasseh ben Israel's 1650 Hope of Israel, resonated amid widespread belief in America's role in divine history, though it faced criticism for selective evidence and lack of archaeological corroboration.[23][24] Scientific perspectives increasingly favored migration from Asia via a Bering Strait land bridge during the post-glacial period, a concept articulated by José de Acosta in 1590 and elaborated by Alexander von Humboldt in his 1810–1811 travels, who noted physical and cultural resemblances between Native Americans and Asian "Tartar" populations. American scholars like Samuel L. Mitchill advanced this around 1810, proposing waves of migration across an ice-free corridor exposed by lowered sea levels approximately 10,000–12,000 years prior, supported by linguistic ties and mammoth remains linking Old and New World faunas. De Witt Clinton, in 1810 addresses, echoed these ideas while speculating on subsequent internal conflicts evidenced by New York earthworks. By 1820, this Asiatic origin gained traction in natural history circles, contrasting with polygenist views—such as Benjamin Smith Barton's advocacy for separate creations—which posited independent origins for American flora, fauna, and peoples to reconcile biblical timelines with New World distinctiveness, though these clashed with monogenist orthodoxy.[23][25] Less dominant theories included transoceanic contacts, such as Carthaginian or Phoenician voyages inferred from ancient navigational lore, or Polynesian influxes suggested by mummification practices and fortifications in the American Northeast. Pre-Adamite hypotheses, reviving Isaac de La Peyrère's 1655 ideas, claimed Native Americans predated biblical Adam, allowing for separate human lines, but these remained marginal due to theological resistance. These diverse speculations underscored a tension between empirical observation—favoring Asiatic routes—and providential interpretations aligning Native Americans with Israelite remnants to explain their decline as divine judgment, a framework influential in contemporary American religious discourse.[23]Core Content and Arguments
Central Thesis on Israelite Descent
In View of the Hebrews, Ethan Smith advanced the thesis that the indigenous peoples of the Americas, commonly referred to as American Indians in the early 19th century, are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, exiled by the Assyrians circa 721 BCE.[1] Smith contended that these tribes, after their captivity, migrated eastward and eventually reached the American continent, preserving elements of their Hebrew heritage amid cultural degeneration. This central argument framed the book's exploration of biblical restoration prophecies, positing that the tribes' presence in America fulfilled scriptural predictions of a dispersed Israel awaiting reunion and conversion in the latter days.[26] Smith supported the descent claim through observed parallels between Native American customs and ancient Israelite practices, drawing on accounts from European observers who interacted with tribes. For instance, he cited James Adair's 40 years among southeastern Indians, noting similarities in monotheism, tribal organization, and rituals such as circumcision and the veneration of a sacred ark, which Adair likened to the Hebrew Ark of the Covenant.[27] Linguistic evidence included corrupted Hebrew terms in Native languages, such as "Yo-he-wah" resembling the divine name Yahweh, and phrases like "Hallelujah" in worship.[28] Elias Boudinot's Star in the West (1816) provided further corroboration with reports of Hebrew-like traditions among tribes, including mourning customs—placing hands over the mouth and faces in dust—mirroring biblical descriptions in Micah 7:16 and Lamentations 3:29.[1] Historical and prophetic arguments reinforced the thesis, with Smith interpreting passages like Isaiah 18 as referring to a western nation (America) aiding Israel's restoration, and 2 Esdras 13 describing a migration path potentially leading to the New World.[29] William Penn's observations of Pennsylvania natives, including their belief in one supreme God, physical resemblances to Jews, and preservation of traditions for over 2,500 years, were invoked to suggest an unbroken Israelite lineage despite wars and isolation.[30] Smith emphasized that these tribes, though lapsed into barbarism, retained monotheistic core beliefs, a great deluge tradition, and priestly orders akin to Hebrew structures, such as high priests termed "Ishtoallo" (man of God) and deputies "Sagan."[31] This framework aimed to demonstrate not mere coincidence but a causal link from ancient Israel to American indigenous populations.[1]Biblical Prophecies and Interpretations
In View of the Hebrews, Ethan Smith extensively interpreted Old Testament prophecies concerning the scattering and eventual restoration of the tribes of Israel, positing that the ten lost tribes had migrated to the American continent following their Assyrian captivity in 722 BCE, thereby identifying Native Americans as their descendants.[1] Smith drew primarily from prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Amos, arguing for a literal fulfillment in the latter days rather than allegorical or spiritualized readings prevalent in some contemporary theology. He contended that unfulfilled promises of land inheritance and national restoration necessitated a physical regathering to Palestine, with America serving as a key site for the dispersed remnants.[1] For instance, Smith cited Ezekiel 36–37 and Isaiah 11 to emphasize God's covenantal oath to reassemble Israel from exile, rejecting premillennial views that spiritualized these events as the church's expansion.[1] A pivotal interpretation centered on Isaiah 18, which Smith applied directly to the United States as the "land shadowing with wings" situated "beyond the rivers of Ethiopia," symbolizing a distant western nation separated by vast waters (interpreted as the Atlantic).[1] He argued this prophecy addressed America's role in heralding and facilitating Israel's restoration, with the chapter's imagery of swift messengers and a divine harvest signaling the continent's discovery by Europeans in 1492 as a providential event to awaken the scattered tribes through Christian missions.[1] Smith linked this to broader dispersal prophecies, such as Jeremiah 30–31 and Isaiah 43, where Israel is gathered from "the north country" and "coasts of the earth," extending these to transoceanic migrations via ancient land bridges or voyages from Asia.[1] This framework positioned the U.S. as an instrument of prophecy, urging its citizens to evangelize Native populations as a precursor to millennial events.[1] Smith further invoked Hosea 1:10–11 and 3, alongside Amos 9:14–15, to depict the ten tribes' numerical multiplication and permanent resettlement after degradation, aligning their "wilderness" state (Isaiah 40:中国3; Hosea 2) with the untamed American interior where Native tribes resided.[1] He cross-referenced these with Deuteronomic curses (Deuteronomy 28–30) and promises of regathering, asserting that Hebrew-like customs among Native Americans—such as monotheistic traditions and ritual purifications—verified prophetic remnants preserved in isolation.[1] Prophecies of Judah's ingathering from global dispersion (Isaiah 11:11–12; Jeremiah 16:15) complemented this, with Smith envisioning a unified restoration under Christ, where America's aboriginal inhabitants would recognize their Israelite heritage through exposure to Scripture.[1] These interpretations underscored Smith's thesis that biblical oracles anticipated hemispheric fulfillment, distinct from European or Asian locales.[1]Evidence from Customs, Ruins, and Language
Ethan Smith argued that Native American customs exhibited striking resemblances to ancient Israelite practices, drawing primarily from accounts by James Adair, who observed southeastern tribes for over 40 years, and Elias Boudinot's Star in the West (1816). Tribes such as the Chickasaw and Choctaw acknowledged a singular supreme being termed the "Great Spirit," "Yohewah," or variants evoking "Jehovah," with worship conducted on elevated "high places" and involving ritual dances chanting "Hallelujah," paralleling early Hebrew monotheism before temple centralization (e.g., 1 Kings 3:3-4).[32] Annual feasts featured unbroken animal bones, bitter herbs for sin purification, and firstfruits offerings, akin to Passover mandates (Exodus 12:8, 46; Leviticus 23:10-11), while pre-war fasting and vegetable-based ablutions echoed Mosaic purification rites.[32] Historical circumcision among some groups, later abandoned, and "cities of refuge" like Choate—designated safe havens for manslayers—mirrored Levitical laws (Numbers 35; Joshua 20), as reported by missionary Jabez B. Hyde.[32] Burial involved washing and anointing the deceased, with hired mourners among the Araucanians, suggesting echoes of Hebrew lamentation customs.[32] A portable sacred ark, consulted in war and placed on stone altars under priestly guard, imitated the biblical mercy seat (Exodus 25:10; 1 Samuel 6:19), per Delaware and other tribal testimonies.[32] Smith interpreted North American ruins as vestiges of Israelite engineering and urbanism, citing American Antiquarian Society reports on Ohio Valley sites near Scioto, Chillicothe, and Newark. These included earthen mounds yielding human skeletons, copper implements, and ornaments, alongside fortified enclosures enclosing 40 acres with 10-foot walls—evidence of pre-Columbian metallurgy and defensive architecture unattributable to nomadic hunters.[32] Mexican pyramids like Cholula and Mississippi variants, per Alexander von Humboldt's surveys, evoked Egyptian-influenced ziggurats potentially adapted by transoceanic migrants, while temple-like mounds with surrounding "old beloved towns" aligned with Hebrew sanctuary traditions.[32] Such antiquities, Smith contended, belied simplistic views of Native origins, implying lost literate societies capable of monumental construction.[32] Linguistic evidence, per Smith, indicated Hebrew roots in Native tongues, with terms like "Y-O-He-Wah," "Yah," "Hal-le-lu-yah," "Wahconda," and "Sagan" (chief) recurring across tribes from the Algonquins to Aztecs, as noted by Adair and Boudinot.[32] Sentence structures favored Hebrew-style metaphors and parallelism, while traditions of a "lost book" and divine speech preserved oral vestiges of scripture.[32] Smith highlighted 1815 excavations in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, unearthing brass artifacts inscribed with Hebrew phylacteries quoting Exodus 16:15 and Deuteronomy 6:5-9, authenticated by local scholars and seen as direct Israelite relics among New England tribes.[32] These parallels, aggregated from missionary and explorer testimonies, formed Smith's case for phonetic and structural affinities despite millennia of divergence.[32]Empirical Evaluation and Critiques
Archaeological and Genetic Disproofs
Genetic analyses of ancient and modern Native American populations reveal primary ancestry from Siberian and East Asian sources, with initial migrations across Beringia occurring between 15,000 and 23,000 years ago. The dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup Q in Native Americans traces to Central Siberian populations, such as the Kets and Altaians, while mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, D, and the rarer X derive from Northeast Asian lineages. Genome-wide studies of pre-Columbian remains, including those from the Anzick Clovis child dated to approximately 12,600 years ago, show no admixture from Near Eastern or Levantine sources that would indicate Israelite migration around 721 BCE or 600 BCE as posited in theories like Ethan Smith's. This absence of Semitic genetic markers, such as haplogroups J1, J2, or E1b1b prevalent in ancient and modern Jewish populations, directly contradicts claims of substantial Israelite descent, as even small founding groups would leave detectable signals in unadmixed indigenous lineages.[33][34] Archaeological records from major pre-Columbian civilizations—Maya, Olmec, and Mississippian—demonstrate independent cultural evolution from Paleo-Indian foundations, without artifacts or technologies diagnostic of Iron Age Israel. Sites yield no evidence of Hebrew script, Levantine-style seals, or pottery forms like collared-rim jars; instead, writing systems such as Mayan glyphs are hieroglyphic and non-alphabetic, unrelated to Proto-Canaanite or Paleo-Hebrew. Technologies absent include iron smelting (Israelites used iron tools by 1000 BCE), spoked-wheel chariots, or domesticated equids for transport—elements central to biblical narratives but unknown in the Americas until European introduction post-1492. Alleged Hebrew relics, including the Bat Creek Stone unearthed in Tennessee in 1889 and claimed to bear Paleo-Hebrew, have been invalidated as forgeries via anachronistic letter forms and lack of contextual provenance, with no corroborating Judean settlements identified in regional excavations. The cumulative empirical data from stratified sites spanning 13,000 years underscores continuity from Asian-derived hunter-gatherers, with no disruptions or overlays from Old World Semitic cultures. Claims of Israelite parallels in ruins or customs, as in View of the Hebrews, rely on superficial analogies dismissed by chronometric dating (e.g., Hopewell mounds at 200 BCE–500 CE predate proposed Israelite arrivals) and functional analyses showing indigenous adaptations to local ecology rather than imported Levantine practices. This evidentiary void aligns with broader transoceanic contact hypotheses requiring extraordinary proof, which remains unforthcoming despite extensive surveys.[33]Anthropological and Historical Inaccuracies
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews posits linguistic affinities between Native American tongues and Hebrew, citing examples such as purported resemblances between words like "Monsey" (a Delaware term) and biblical "Manasseh," or "cabe" for sea akin to Hebrew "kaph." These claims rest on folk etymology and selective comparisons, ignoring systematic phonological, morphological, and syntactic structures that classify Native American languages into unrelated families like Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Uto-Aztecan, with proto-languages diverging from Asian origins over 12,000 years ago. Modern comparative linguistics finds no credible Semitic substrate, attributing apparent similarities to coincidence or post-contact borrowing rather than ancient inheritance.[35] Archaeologically, the book's interpretation of earthen mounds and fortifications as remnants of Israelite cities overlooks their indigenous chronology and construction techniques; for instance, Ohio's Hopewell mounds, dated 200 BCE to 500 CE via radiocarbon, represent gradual local innovations in earthworks for ceremonial purposes, not sudden imports of Near Eastern ziggurat-style architecture or metallurgy absent in pre-Columbian contexts. No Hebrew inscriptions, wheeled vehicles, or iron implements—hallmarks of biblical-era Israelite society—appear in American sites predating European contact, contradicting expectations of a transoceanic migration around 722 BCE following the Assyrian exile.[36] Historical timelines exacerbate these discrepancies: Native American skeletal and cultural evidence traces continuous occupation from at least 15,000 years ago via Beringian land bridges, predating the Lost Tribes' dispersal by over 7,000 years and rendering implausible an undetected Israelite influx that would overwrite millennia of prior development without leaving verifiable traces like alphabetic writing or covenantal artifacts. Smith's reliance on earlier works, such as James Adair's 1775 History of the American Indians, propagates unverified traveler accounts prone to confirmation bias toward biblical literalism, later refuted by systematic ethnography showing customs like ritual purification or tribal governance as convergent adaptations common across global hunter-gatherer societies rather than uniquely Hebraic markers. Genetic analyses confirm Asian derivation for Native populations, with autosomal DNA and mitochondrial haplogroups (A2, B2, C1b, D1) clustering with Siberian and East Asian lineages from migrations circa 20,000–15,000 years ago, exhibiting negligible pre-Columbian Levantine admixture; Y-chromosome data similarly aligns with Northeast Asian Q-M3 haplogroup dominance, debunking Israelite descent claims through absence of J1 or E1b1b markers typical of ancient Near Eastern groups. Anthropologically, asserted parallels in practices—such as alleged circumcision or ark-like canoes—stem from overstated 18th–19th-century missionary observations, which conflate universal rituals (e.g., bloodletting in Mesoamerican codices unrelated to Mosaic law) with Hebrew specificity, ignoring polytheistic cosmologies and matrilineal systems incompatible with patrilineal Israelite kinship documented in Assyrian records. These inaccuracies reflect the era's millenarian speculation over empirical verification, prioritizing prophetic fulfillment over interdisciplinary evidence.Relation to the Book of Mormon
Identified Parallels in Narrative and Themes
B. H. Roberts, a Latter-day Saint leader and scholar, outlined extensive parallels in his analysis between Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823) and Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon (1830), focusing on shared narrative arcs of ancient Hebrew migration, societal division, and civilizational collapse, alongside thematic emphases on divine judgment, preservation of remnants, and eschatological restoration.[37] These include depictions of Israelites fleeing destruction in the Old World, undertaking prolonged sea voyages to an uninhabited American continent, and establishing advanced societies that later fracture into contending civilized and barbarous factions.[37] In narrative structure, both works portray Hebrew migrants journeying northward to settle near major rivers, developing sophisticated cultures marked by metallurgy, written languages, navigation, and fortified cities with watchtowers, only for prolonged wars to culminate in the extermination of the civilized group by their savage counterparts, leaving remnants as the degraded Native American populations observed in the 19th century.[37] View of the Hebrews speculates on ancient Israelite tribes arriving by ships, building extensive fortifications, and dividing into a thriving, arts-advanced faction and a warring, nomadic one, with the former's ruins evident in North American mounds; the Book of Mormon narrates Lehi's family arriving circa 600 BCE, the Nephites constructing cities and temples amid internal divisions, and their ultimate annihilation by the Lamanites around 400 CE, whose descendants form the "Lamanites" encountered by Europeans.[37] Both emphasize uninhabited lands upon arrival, religious motivations for migration, and generational prophetic records transmitted amid conflict.[37] Thematic overlaps center on biblical prophecies of Israel's scattering due to wickedness—such as Jerusalem's fall and exile—and a promised remnant's marvelous preservation for future gathering and redemption, with both invoking Isaiah chapters extensively to interpret American Indians as fulfilling end-times restoration.[37] View of the Hebrews argues for Native Americans as lost Israelite descendants, doomed to divine chastisement yet destined for revival through a "book from heaven" revealing their origins, denouncing idolatry, human sacrifice, and polygamy while promoting republican governance over monarchy; the Book of Mormon echoes this with Nephite-Lamanite cycles of prosperity, apostasy, and destruction, a post-resurrection visit by Jesus Christ to the Americas (paralleling Quetzalcoatl traditions in View), and prophecies of a sacred record emerging from Gentiles to affirm Indian-Hebrew ties and facilitate their "blossoming" into a mighty nation.[37] Shared motifs include buried sacred records (yellow parchments in View, gold plates in Book), priestly breastplates akin to Urim and Thummim, Egyptian-influenced hieroglyphs, and a "sealed book" withheld from but mourned by the Indians, alongside discussions of U.S. constitutional government aiding indigenous renewal.[37]| Parallel Element | View of the Hebrews | Book of Mormon |
|---|---|---|
| Divine destruction and exile | Israel's overthrow for sin, tribes scattered across oceans | Nephite society's collapse for iniquity, Lamanite survival as remnant |
| Civilized vs. barbarous division | Advanced builders vs. savage warriors; latter prevail | Nephites (industrious) vs. Lamanites (cursed, nomadic); former destroyed |
| Prophetic restoration | Indians to receive lost records, revert to purity, form great nation | Lamanites to be "delightsome," gathered via Gentile-delivered book |
| Sacred artifacts and records | Breastplates, buried writings in Hebrew/Egyptian | Interpreters (Urim/Thummim), plates with reformed Egyptian script |
Claims of Direct Influence
Critics have asserted that Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823) directly influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon (1830), positing that Joseph Smith or his associates drew upon its arguments, structure, and phrasing to construct the Latter-day Saint scripture.[38] These claims, first systematically articulated in the early 20th century and popularized by Fawn Brodie in No Man Knows My History (1945), hinge on thematic overlaps such as the identification of Native Americans as descendants of ancient Israelites, extensive quotations from Isaiah, and narratives of ancient migrations across the Atlantic followed by internal conflicts and a "gentile" restoration.[5] Proponents argue these elements were not coincidental but reflected borrowing, given the books' shared cultural milieu of 19th-century speculation on Hebrew origins for indigenous peoples, though they emphasize specific narrative echoes—like the scattering of Israel, fortified ruins attributed to Hebrews, and a "book" or records emerging to reveal origins—as evidence of dependency rather than mere zeitgeist.[39] A key pillar of direct influence claims is the purported access to View of the Hebrews by Book of Mormon principals, particularly through Oliver Cowdery, who served as Joseph Smith's primary scribe during the 1829 dictation. Cowdery resided in Poultney, Vermont, from approximately 1816 to 1825, the same locality where Ethan Smith pastored a Congregational church and where the book circulated among congregants following its 1823 publication.[40] Critics, including Eber D. Howe in early anti-Mormon polemics and later analysts, speculate that Cowdery encountered the text there—possibly via church discussions or lending libraries—and conveyed its ideas to Smith, enabling integration during translation.[39] This connection gained traction after B.H. Roberts, a prominent Latter-day Saint general authority and historian, privately compiled in the 1920s an 18-point "parallel" document highlighting correspondences, such as both works' depiction of Hebrew migrations to America circa 600 BCE, the role of a "marvelous work" in gathering Israel, and linguistic vestiges like Hebrew-derived American words.[41] Roberts viewed these as troubling enough to question the Book of Mormon's divine origins internally, though he did not publicly endorse plagiarism and maintained faith in its authenticity.[42] Such claims extend to textual analysis, where detractors identify non-trivial similarities beyond generic biblical motifs, including View's emphasis on a Hebrew "record" preserved in America (echoing the Book of Mormon's golden plates) and its portrayal of ancient American civilizations with pyramids, walled cities, and civil wars mirroring Nephite-Lamanite conflicts.[43] Eber Howe and subsequent critics like those in Mormonism Unvailed (1834) implied derivation without direct proof, while modern iterations, such as in George D. Smith's analyses, argue the cumulative parallels—enumerated in Roberts' list—persuasively indicate source dependency over independent revelation.[44] However, no manuscript evidence or contemporary testimony confirms Smith's reading of View, and the theory emerged decades after 1830, supplanted earlier plagiarism hypotheses like the Spalding-Rigdon theory.[40] Empirical scrutiny reveals that while access via Cowdery is plausible given Poultney's small population (under 2,000) and the book's local promotion, the parallels often rely on broad interpretive alignments rather than verbatim lifts, with View lacking the Book of Mormon's unique Christology, doctrinal expansions, or anachronistic details later critiqued archaeologically.[5]Rebuttals and Differences from Mormon Perspectives
Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists argue that claims of direct influence from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823) on the Book of Mormon lack verifiable evidence, noting the book's limited circulation of approximately 500 copies in its first edition and no contemporary records indicating Joseph Smith or his associates accessed it.[40] They emphasize that the theory of plagiarism was not proposed until 1903 by B. H. Roberts, who presented it as a speculative exercise rather than a firm conclusion, and that earlier critics of the Book of Mormon, such as Alexander Campbell in 1831, identified other potential sources like Solomon Spalding's manuscript but overlooked View of the Hebrews.[5] From an LDS perspective, superficial parallels—such as the shared idea of Israelite origins for some Native American populations—reflect broader 19th-century speculation about ancient mound-builder civilizations rather than causal derivation, as similar notions appeared in dozens of contemporaneous works without implying textual borrowing.[40] Key structural differences undermine plagiarism assertions, as View of the Hebrews comprises a non-narrative argumentative tract compiling biblical prophecies, historical anecdotes, and ethnographic observations to support its thesis, lacking the Book of Mormon's integrated storyline of migrations, wars, prophets, and doctrinal discourses spanning over 1,000 years.[38] LDS analyses highlight that while both texts reference Hebrew customs among indigenous peoples (e.g., ruins and linguistic echoes), View of the Hebrews attributes all American natives to the Lost Ten Tribes without distinguishing subgroups or internal conflicts, whereas the Book of Mormon delineates specific lineages like Nephites and Lamanites with distinct theological trajectories and a culminating Christological visitation absent in Smith's work.[40] Moreover, the Book of Mormon's detailed Christology, including post-resurrection ministry and sacramental ordinances, contrasts with View of the Hebrews' focus on unfulfilled prophecies and restorationist pleas, rendering claims of derivation implausible upon textual comparison.[38] Theological divergences further separate the texts: View of the Hebrews envisions a future gathering of Israelites in America under Christian auspices without unique revelatory claims, while the Book of Mormon positions itself as an independent scriptural witness with exclusive elements like the "great and abominable church" and covenantal promises tied to specific ancient migrations from Jerusalem around 600 BCE.[40] Proponents of LDS authenticity, such as those affiliated with FAIR, contend that even if Joseph Smith encountered the book—itself unproven—the 19 parallel points often cited by critics (e.g., barbarous vs. civilized divisions) are either too vague or contradicted by View of the Hebrews' omission of core Book of Mormon motifs like metallurgy, wheeled vehicles, or covenantal name changes.[40] Critics' reliance on these parallels, they argue, overlooks the empirical absence of verbatim lifts or sequential matches, favoring instead the Book of Mormon's production context as divinely sourced translation rather than human compilation.[45]| Aspect | View of the Hebrews (1823) | Book of Mormon (1830) |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Argumentative essays with biblical excerpts | Narrative history with sermons and prophecies |
| Native American Origins | All tribes from Lost Ten Tribes | Specific Lehi colony; others unspecified |
| Christ in Americas | No explicit post-resurrection appearance | Detailed ministry and teachings |
| Civilizational Details | General ruins and customs; no advanced societies | Cities, kings, records, and technologies |
| Theological Focus | Prophetic fulfillment via missions | Covenant restoration and exclusive witness |