In What Are the Odds Brian H. argues that Smith copied the terms Cumorah and Moroni come from the
Comoros Islands and its capital of Moroni.
Other posters made sure to remind Brian that the terms were not on any
maps known during the time, nor are there any extant dime novels or sources
that contain the terms. But I wanted to take a step back and discuss
methodology and comparisons. Outside of
the military kind, I’m not very strong with theory, but I think this is a good
description of why ancient comparisons are stronger than modern ones.
I wanted to comment on methodological
consistency. In order for critics to support a naturalistic origin of the BoM
they must find all sorts of sources and documents that Smith was supposed to
have read, memorized, and then recalled in bits and pieces. For example, I read
a critical website which claimed Smith had enough knowledge to plagiarize from: Caesar,
Frontinus, Procopius, multiple Irish Legends, The Venerable Bede, Jonathon
Swift, Vegetius, Sunzi, Wu Chi, Emperor Maurice, Moorish Legend, the Irish Book
of Invasions, The Aeneid by Virgil, Roman legends, Plutarch, Polybius, Livy,
Cincinnatus, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Augustine, Eusebius, Tacitus, The Iliad
by Homer, Sallust, Thucydides, and Herodotus.
So now we can add Captain Kidd to that.
Though when a world renowned non Mormon Egyptologist sees a
distinct connection between Pahor and Paanch in historical sources and Pahoran
and Paanchi in the BoM, it is immediately discounted without a second thought.
Or its discounted with some lame attempts to show its just a common Italian
name, but I guess we can just add that right next to the Irish legends and accounts
of Sullust. http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=brian+pahoran
As my graduate adviser used to say, any monkey can make
comparisons, so many of these, even the ones which support Mormonism aren't
very strong. DJB and others have certainly shown that is the case with the
Captain Kid comparison. They might be weak on their own, but when you end up
having hundreds of comparisons, and dozens of names attested in ancient sources
from the warrior Tecum in the Popul Vuh, to Egyptian names like Pahor and
Paanch (noted by an eminent non Mormon Egyptologist), to the Olmec Kish, to the
city of Lamani, who then happen to exist in the same time and place as the BoM
suggests; it becomes much stronger than doing a google book search for some
nouns or phrases that Smith supposedly learned within his vast underground
library, that he secretly committed to memory during his nights off as a day
laborer, so he could quote them, one line at a time, at random moments while
dictating an intricately complicated text without notes. The absurdity of this
theory is shown in this excellent satire by Jeff Lindsey, called One Day in the Life. Modern day scholars with access to the best research libraries, ample amounts
of free time, and access to even more information on the internet would have
trouble doing that.
So that is the problem with comparisons and why this theory
is rather weak. A stronger theory, and what ancient comparisons have going for
them, is that it is consistent with Smith translating an ancient text. So he
didn't have to know a few dozen sources- a couple from Kidd, a couple from a
Greek source, a couple from a Roman source, and so on- and then plagiarize
them, he could simply translate using the power of God, and the ancient
comparisons (person names, place names, cultural clues, societal information
[see the Mesoamerican Custom of Smiting Off Arms on murals for
example], geographical tidbits, and so on) are there because its an ancient
text. So ancient comparisons end up making that theory sound more plausible,
while modern comparisons or plagiarisms combined with what we know about the
production of the BoM make it the theory seem even more absurd.
And to answer your question about percentages, there are
only so many sounds in the human language. So there is a fairly good chance
that any two sounds from two different languages can sound familiar. Thanks.