1. Nephi did not know how to build a ship
2. No mention is made about Nephi learning how to sail a ship
3. No mention of tool making, smelting, working timbers, etc., is found in the barge building of the Jaredites
4. No mention is made of the Jaredites making cordage
5. We do not know that Nephi possessed any of these skills before building his ship
6. Would it have been appropriate for a farmer (Nephi) or merchant (Lehi) to build a ship?
7. It would be doubtful that Jacob or Joseph helped to build a ship being as young as they were
But one of the most ridiculous statements made by Nibley is the one about “nor would it have been appropriate for a prince to have indulged himself in manual labor.” Let us use a little bit of reasoning here.
First, Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king and ruled for 11 years. In that time he had several sons, one of which was Mulek. We do not know how old any of these sons would be, but it is doubtful that any were older than about 13, since Zedekiah was only 32 when he was captured by the Baylonians and his sons were killed before his eyes. If Mulek had been an older son, he would have been known to the Babylonians. The fact that they did not know to find him and kill him with the others suggests that he was young enough to have been unknown to them (the Babyonian Chronicles show that the siege of Jerusalem lasted three years and ended on March 16, 597 B.C.)
Very likely, Mulek was merely a baby or very young child. And just as likely, he would have been under the care of servants assigned to his well-being and protection. It is only an assumption, but it is likely these servants, to protect the future monarchy, found a way to secret Mulek out of the city at some time during the siege or after the conquest while the Babylonians were chasing the fleeing Zedekiah all the way to Jericho, along with his family and his guards. In any event, the point is that Mulek would not have been older than about 10-13, and may even have been as young as unborn at the time of the capture of Jerusalem (some of Zedekiah’s wives and concubines were left in the city after the Babylonian conquest and withdrawal).As a young child or baby, Mulek would not have had any skills, let alone building a ship. If indeed they built a ship, it would not have been by Mulek’s labor in any case because of his age. And since the group with Mulek were led to the Land of Promise by the hand of the Lord (Omni 1:15), it is just as probable that in some way the Lord instructed those there on how to build a ship. Evidently, this is not a problem for the Lord as is illustrated by the events of Nephi.
As for a prince indulging himself, again, Mulek may have been a baby when secreted out of the city and carried to the seashore where a ship could be obtained or built. And to what seashore would they have been led? Certainly not to any along the Mediterranean for the Babylonians controlled all the coast and all of Palestine except for Judah and Tyre, and both were under extensive siege. In addition, it has already been established that because of the fierce merchant competition in the Mediterranean at the time, especially with Tartessus near the Straits of Gibraltar, that any Phoenician ship leaving the Mediterranean would have been followed by such competitors to see where it was going.
(See the next post, “How Did Mulek Escape Jerusalem and Where Did They Go?” to see how Mulek escaped from the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the fate of his brothers)
What think ye of the tales of Jeremiah or others of the Prophets of Israel taking young princes to Scotland or other areas of diaspora?
ReplyDeleteWhat of the 'Stone of Scone(sp?)' some accounts posit to be kept under the Throne of England to have come from Jerusalem with them?
Shades of the DaVinci Code...
Along those same lines but somewhat extended -- The Ainu, now of northern Japan, are thought to be of Caucasian ethnicity. Could they descend from Hagoth's Nephite diaspora?
ReplyDelete-- What of the white tribes who marched out of Central Asia as Goths (Hagoths?) to help found the Feudal systems of the Vikings and of all of Europe?
-- It should also be noted that 'Rus' means 'red' in several northern European languages and is linked to the Norse and the Vikings who were the founders of the Russian feudal system.
Perhaps Eric the Red was only trying to go 'home' to the Americas?
First of all, the man Hagoth who built many ships (Alma 63:5,7-8) is never recorded as leaving the Land of Promise in one of those ships as many theorists erroneously claim. While his ships were venturing into the West Sea, he was busy building more ships (Alma 63:7). While it is true in religious matters, many people of Polynesia claim to be the people of Hagoth, this is more a label (the people of America) than a descendency—that is, “one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not” (Alma 63:8). This ship is thought by many, including this author, to have sailed west and into the currents that that took it into Polynesia (see any atlas of sea currents).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Goths have had many names, possibly due to their population being composed of many separate ethnic groups. The name Goths derives from the Germanic Guton to Gutaniz and Gutar, the self-designation of the Gotlanders. There was also the Scandinavian tribal name Geat, from Gautoz derived from geutan, meaning "to pour.” The Indo-European root of the "pour,” is connected with the name of a river flowing through Vastergötlamd in Sweden, the Göta-aly, which drains Lake Vanern into the Kattegat. Old Norse records do not distinguish between the Goths from the Gutar and the Gotlanders—both are called Gotar in Old West Norse. The Old East Norse term found on the Rökstone and elsewhere for both Goths and Gotlanders was Gutar, At some time in European prehistory, consonant changes created a “g” from the “gh” and “t” from the “d.” Thus, what has come down in history as Goths, was originally Ghöd. This is hardly a convincing argument for Hagoth originations.
And what do I think of the other items mentioned above—the answer is simple. The Diaspora—which is found in the Septuagint in the phrase "esē diaspora en pasais basileias tēs gēs" translated to mean "thou shalt be a dispersion in all kingdoms of the earth"—is pretty self-explanatory. The Lost Ten Tribes that were led out of Israel by the Babylonians and were eventually scattered throughout the north and west, have brought many legends, myths, and facts. While a number of these were of the tribe of Ephraim (attested to by the many Patriarchical Blessings recorded in England, mainland Europe and Scandinavia), many other tribes were included that ended up wandering over parts of the Earth. The path of Dan is probably pretty obvious, from the Danube River to the country of Dan’s Land, which we call Denmark. Trying to separate fact from fiction among these many tales would be difficult, however, it might stand to reason that the kingship lines of all that area would probably have originally come from these ten tribes.