The Discovery of Hebrew Relics.

In addition to these summaries of evidence on the Hebrew origin of the native American races there are several special discoveries bearing on the subject that I think should be mentioned. One is related by Ethan Smith, author of "Views of the Hebrews," a work in which he undertakes to prove that the American Indians are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. While preparing his work for a second edition, he heard of the discovery in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, of a parchment, supposed to be of native American origin, covered with Hebrew characters. Mr. Smith went to Pittsfield to investigate the matter, and found the facts to be as follows, the information being given by the man who found the parchment:

I.

The Pittsfield Hebrew Parchment.

This [the discoverer of the parchment] was Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church of Pittsfield, and in the county, as the minister of the place informed [me]. Mr. Merrick 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, (a place in Pittsfield, so called, and lying, as the writer was afterward informed, at some distance from the middle of the town where Mr. Merrick is now [about 1825] living). He ploughed and conveyed away old chips and earth, to some depth, as the surface of the earth appeared uneven. After the work was done, walking over the place, he discovered, near where the earth had been dug the deepest, a kind of black strap, about six inches in length, and one and a half in breadth, and something thicker than a draw leather [tug] of a harness. He perceived it had at each end a loop of some hard substance, probably for the purpose of carrying it. He conveyed it into his house, and threw it in an old tool box. He afterward found it thrown out of doors, and again conveyed it to the box. He attempted to cut it open, and found it was formed of pieces of thick raw hide, sewed and made water tight with the sinews of some animal; and in the fold it contained four folded leaves of old parchment. These leaves were of a dark yellow, and contained some kind of writing. Some of the neighbors saw and examined them. One of these parchments they tore in pieces; the other three he saved, and delivered them to Mr. Sylvester Larned, a graduate then in town, who took them to Cambridge, and had them examined. They were written in Hebrew with a pen, in plain and intelligible writing. The following is an extract of a letter sent to Mr. Merrick by Mr. Larned, upon this subject:

Sir:—I have examined the parchment manuscript, which you had the goodnesss to give me. After some time and with much difficulty and assistance I have ascertained their meaning, which is as follows: (I have numbered the manuscripts.)

No. 1, is translated by Duet. vi: 4-9 verses inclusive.

No. 2, by Deut, xi: 13-21 verses inclusive.

No. 3, Exod. xiii: 11-16 verses inclusive.

I am, etc. [Signed] SYLVESTER LARNED.

. . .

Did the Book of Mormon Antedate Works in English on American Antiquities, Accessible to Joseph Smith and His Associates.

In the presence of so many resemblances between native American traditions and Book of Mormon historical incidents and Nephite customs, I can understand how the question naturally arises in some minds whether the ancient historical incidents, and the customs of American peoples—purported to be recorded in the Book of Mormon,—whence the traditions come, or is it from the native American traditions that the alleged historical incidents and customs of the Book of Mormon come. That is to say, was it possible for Joseph Smith or those associated with him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon to have possessed such a knowledge of American antiquities and traditions that they could make their book's alleged historical incidents, and the customs of its peoples, conform to the antiquities and traditions of the native Americans? The question may appear foolish to those acquainted with the character and environment of the Prophet; but to those not acquainted with him or his environment the question may be of some force, and for that reason it is considered here.

In the first place, then, it must be remembered how great the task would be to become sufficiently acquainted with American antiquities and traditions to make the Book of Mormon story and the alleged customs of its people agree with the antiquities and traditions of the American natives, in the striking manner in which we have found them to agree. In the second place the youthfulness of the Prophet must be taken into account—he was but twenty-five years of age when the Book of Mormon was published, and it is the concensus of opinion on the part of all those competent to speak upon the subject, that he was not a student of books. But what is most important of all, and what settles the question on this point (whether Joseph Smith, Solomon Spaulding, or Sidney Rigdon be regarded as the author) is the fact that the means through which to obtain the necessary knowledge of American antiquities, the body of literature in English now at one's command on the subject, was not then (1823-1830) in existence. The Spanish and native American writers previous to 1830 may be dismissed from consideration at once, since their works could not be available to Joseph Smith and his associates because written in a language unknown to them, and such fragmentary translations of them as existed were so rare as to be inaccessible to men of western New York and Ohio. About the only works to which Joseph Smith could possibly have had access before the publication of the Book of Mormon would have been:

First, the publications of the "American Antiquarian Society, Translations and Collections," published in the "Archaeoligia Americana," Worcester, Massachusetts, 1820; but this information was so fragmentary in character that it could not possibly have supplied the historical incidents of the Book of Mormon, or the customs of its peoples, even could it be proven that Joseph Smith had been familiar with that collection.

Second, the little work of Ethan Smith, published in Vermont—second edition 1825—in which the author holds the native American Indian tribes to be descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. In fact his work bears the title, "View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America."

Third, "The History of the American Indians," by James Adair, published in England, 1775. Mr. Adair confines the scope of his work to the North American Indians.

Fourth. The translation of some parts of Humboldt's works on New Spain, published first in America and England between the years 1806 and 1809, and later Black's enlarged translation of them in New York, 1811.

These are the only works, so far as I can ascertain, that could at all be accessible to Joseph Smith or any of his associates; and there is no evidence that the Prophet or his associates ever saw any one of them. Moreover, notwithstanding some of these writers advance the theory that the native Americans are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, and their books contain fragmentary and disconnected information concerning American antiquities—no one acquainted with these works could possibly regard them as being the source whence Book of Mormon incidents or customs of Book of Mormon peoples were drawn, a fact which will be more apparent after we have considered—as we shall later consider—the originality of the Book of Mormon. Since, therefore, from the very nature of all the circumstances surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, neither Joseph Smith nor his associates could possibly have become acquainted with the location of the chief centers of ancient American civilizations, nor with native American traditions and customs, it must be evident that Book of Mormon historical incidents and the customs of Book of Mormon peoples were not derived from works on American antiquities and traditions.

. . .

In the Manner of its Coming Forth.

In the manner of its coming forth no less than in its structure and its names, the Book of Mormon is original. It must be remembered that at the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon such a thing as a new revelation from God was utterly unlooked for. Indeed it was the consensus of Christian opinion and teaching that the time of revelation had passed; that the days of miracles were over; that God in the Christian dispensation to mankind (the dispensation in which Messiah ministered in person) spoke the final word; that no more divine communication would be given. Speculating upon this very subject in connection with the desirability for knowledge respecting the ancient inhabitants of America, Ethan Smith, in his "View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America," says, most emphatically:

We are to expect no new revelation from heaven, and the days of miracles are thought to be past. We probably must look for just such evidence to exhibit to the world that people so long lost [as the ten Tribes of Israel], as is in fact exhibited by the natives of America.[4]

It is well to remember that this was said some years before the Book of Mormon was published, and I repeat that it represents the generally accepted Christian idea concerning revelation and miracles. Furthermore, it is notorious that the prime objection urged against the Book of Mormon was the fact that it claimed to be a new revelation from God; and the arguments found in the discourses and writings of the early Elders of the Church clearly prove that the chief contention over the Book of Mormon in those early days was on this point.[5] It follows, therefore, that Joseph Smith's account of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was brought forth and translated was a very original one; for it involved a revelation from God to make known its existence, and what men call a miracle to secure its translation. Here, then, was not only originality, but a bold contradiction of what was supposed to be the most completely settled doctrine of modern Christendom, viz. that the age of revelations and miracles had forever passed away. It is scarcely probable that imposters would move along such lines as these. The proclamation of a new revelation making known the existence of a new volume of scripture was the most remarkable innovation upon Christian opinion that the world had ever witnessed. Orthodoxy stood aghast at the presumption as they called it; and seemed for a time to forget all other points of controversy in order to concentrate their attack upon this innovation of their most cherished idea. They thought the very claim that the Book of Mormon involved a new revelation from God was sufficient to justify its rejection. Yet never was opposition so completely demolished in controversy as this sectarian argument against new and continual revelation. So completely was it overthrown that we to-day scarcely ever hear it mentioned. With this, however, I have nothing further to do. My only point at present is that there was a bold originality in Joseph Smith's account of the coming forth and translation of the Book of Mormon, which, in addition to contravening the accepted Christian opinion of the times on the subject of revelation and miracles, carried with it much weight in support of the claims made for this American volume of scripture; for surely imposters seeking to foist a book upon the world either for obtaining fame or money would never be found moving along lines so diametrically opposite to accepted opinions.

. . .

Its Accounting for the Peopling of America.

In its account of peopling America no less than in its structure and the manner in which its existence was made known and its translation accomplished, the Book of Mormon is original. All the books on American antiquities that could possibly have been accessible to Joseph Smith and his associates favored the theory of migrations from northeastern Asia by way of Behring Straits where the Asiatic and American continents approach each other. See Josiah Priest's American Antiquities, preface. Ethan Smith, referring to the authorities that he was acquainted with on this subject, says:

All seem to agree that the Indians came from the northwest, and overspread the continent to the south. * * * * * I forbear to offer any further remarks upon these testimonies incidentally afforded by this most celebrated author, [meaning Humboldt]. Let them be duly weighed by the judicious reader; and he surely cannot doubt but that the natives of America came from the north over Behring's Straits; and descended from a people of as great mental cultivation, as were the ancient family of Israel.[6]

Not only were such the prevailing views at the time Ethan Smith wrote, 1825, but even to this day the same general opinion prevails among authorities;[7] that is, that America was peopled from Asia by way of Behring Straits. The migrations of the Book of Mormon, however, contravene this quite generally accepted theory. While it is supposed that the Jaredites passed out of the Euphrates valley and wandered several years eastwardly through Asia, they crossed the Pacific and landed in the south part of the north continent of America and settled in a district of country they afterwards called Moron, near what was afterwards the Nephite province called Desolation, which was in the region of country known to us as the Central American States.[8] The Nephite colony, as we have seen[9], landed on the west coast of South America about thirty degrees south latitude; and Mulek's colony is supposed to have landed somewhere in the south part of the North American continent. These Book of Mormon accounts of migrations to the American continents constitute the widest possible departure from usually accepted theories upon the subject.

The Nativity of Ancient American Peoples.

The Book of Mormon is original with reference to the facts it presents respecting the nativity of its peoples. On this point, more is sometimes claimed by believers in the Book of Mormon than is warranted by the facts in the case. For example, it is sometimes stated that the Israelitish origin of the native Americans was first asserted by the Book of Mormon. That is not true. Long before the advent of the Book of Mormon James Adair, whose work was published in 1775, advanced the theory that the native American Indians were the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, and argued for the truth of his theory at great length.[10] Ethan Smith, in his work we have several times quoted, advances the theory that the native Indians were the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel," the very title of his book—"View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America"—is the evidence of his holding that theory.

It is therefore a mistake to say that the idea of Israelitish descent of the native American Indians originated with the Book of Mormon. Indeed the theory that the native Americans were the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel found many advocates both in Europe and the United States, especially, I may say, in the New England states, before 1830. Wherein the Book of Mormon is original in respect of this matter is that while declaring the Israelitish descent of the ancient people of America, it directly contravenes the idea that the native Americans, are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, by incidentally declaring those tribes to be in another part of the world, and Jesus announcing to the Nephites his intention to appear unto them, and administer among them.[11] Of course reference to Israelitish descent is here made to the two last migrations only, that is, to the colony of Lehi, and the colony of Mulek. The colony of Jared were doubtless of the same race, but of earlier ancestors, among whom the patriarch Shem. The Book of Mormon refers to Lehi's colony as made up of descendants of Manasseh [Lehi] and Ephraim [Ishmael][12] while the colony of Mulek were Jews.

From this it appears that the Book of Mormon is as boldly original in declaring the nativity of these colonies that peopled America with teeming millions of their descendants, as it is in its account of the course of their migrations or the manner in which the Book of Mormon came forth. For, in limiting the nativity of these colonies to the descendants of Joseph and of Judah, it as radically contravenes existing opinions upon the subject as it does in respect of the manner in which the book came forth, and the course of migration.