Social: There is an obvious parallel between this genealogy and the rather well-known genealogies of the Bible. In spite of that gross similarity, however, there is also a significant difference. In the Bible, genealogical lists are given in order of descendance. The tale is being told from oldest to newest, so the generational linkages go from father to son. These are the Biblical “begats.” In Ether, we have a generational linkage, but it moves from son to father. It is the precise reverse of the Biblical model.
The reason for the difference is the difference in the intent of the written text. In the Bible, the text tells the story “from the beginning.” In Ether, the essential person is the recorder, or the person who is writing the document. In this case, Ether. Ether’s authority is established through the connection to the past, but the focus is still on Ether and his times. Therefore, the genealogy moves in a different direction. It is interesting that as a model, Ether’s genealogy is a much more direct parallel to the general Mesoamerican model than the Biblical one.
Chronological: Including Ether from verse 6, we have a total of 30 names listed in this genealogy, and they are all listed indicating a generational line of descent (although there is room for some sloppiness in the list, as noted above). If we assume an average generous lifespan of between 60 and 70 years per person, we have a length of time from between 1800 and 2100 years (giving Ether a full 60 or 70 years of life). This gives us a potential method of assigning a gross chronology to the Jaredites, except that we do not have a useful starting point for the chronology. The only hope we have of locating this gross chronology to that of the Nephites is knowning that Ether and Coriantumr are contemporaries (Ether 14-15), and that Coriantumr spent nine months with the people of Zarahmela prior to the arrival of the Nephites (Omni 1:21). While this gives us a range of time, it is not a very specific one. We know that the Mosiah I arrives in Zarahemla somewhere around 200 BC, and we know that the Mulekite arrive in the New World somewhere around the time that the Lehites do, say 580 BC. This gives us a starting point for the chronology that has a wide range, from 580 BC to 200 BC.
Sorenson places the event early in the Mulekite heritage in order to coincide with the archaeological evidence of the ending of the Olmec period in Mesoamerica:
“The final destruction of the Jared ruling line could have been as early as 580 B.C. or as late as 400 B.C. The Book of Mormon does not tell us enough to allow a more precise determination, although I believe a date toward the earlier end of that span is preferable. The archaeological record is now quite settled on about 550 B.C. for the end of the First Tradition.
Taking together the geographical setting, the cultural patterns, the agreement in dates, and many specific facts we cannot go into at this point, identifying the culture in which the Jaredites were involved with the First or Olmec Tradition is very reasonable.” (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985], 119.)
This reasoning works well if we assume that the Jaredites were the Olmec. However, that contention is quite unlikely. It is much better to indicate that the Jaredites were participants in the Olmec culture. This would place the ending of the Jaredites in the epi-Olmec phase rather than the Olmec proper. The ending of the Jaredites would then be parallel to the way that we see the ending of the Nephites in this commentary, as an ending of a particular polity, not a culture.
Arguing for a perhaps later demise of the Jaredite polity is the notice that we have of Coriantumr’s stay with the people of Zarahemla. There are two aspects of this connection that are important. Note that we learn that Coriantumr stays with the people of Zarahemla, and that the stone is brought to Mosiah:
Omni 1:19-22
19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.
20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.
21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.
22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.
The first piece of information is that Coriantumr stays with the people of Zarahemla. The early history of the people of Zarahemla suggests that they had participated in the Olmec culture after their landing, and therefore lost their language and their god (Omni 1:17). It would appear that some smaller group broke away and moved up the Grijalva valley to the location of Zarahemla. While it is possible that it was coincidental that the city and ruler at the time of Mosiah I’s arrival are both named Zarahemla, it is also much more probable that this is a fairly recent relocation, and that the city was named for the leader who brought them there. This would require that Coriantumr have lived with the people of Zarahemla perhaps less than 50 years prior to the arrival of Mosiah.
The bringing of the stone to Mosiah also suggests that this stone continued to have some interest to the people. While they might have been interested in a nearly three hundred year old stone, it is more likely that this was brought to Mosiah because it was a record of relatively recent history. Therefore, this commentary will use 250 BC as a probable time death of Ether, and therefore a plausible anchor for the generational chronology. (The chronology in Palmer follows Sorenson’s basic outline, using 600 BC as the time of Ether, and moves backwards in 70 year generational markers. This gives Palmer a 2700 BC departure date for Jared. This commentary would suggest that the timing of Ether would be later, and that the 70 year generation is the most generous probable, with a shorter time being more likely. See David A. Palmer. In Search of Cumorah. Horizon Publishers and Distributors. 1981, p. 128).
Our next chronological issue is the dating of the Tower of Babel. Reynolds and Sjodahl provide the following estimates for the timing of the Tower of Babel:
“According to the chronology of Bishop Usher, which appears in English versions of the Bible, the building of the Tower was undertaken about B.C. 2,200. Dr. Joseph Angus, in his Bible Handbook, suggests 2,247. According to Babylonian traditions, the City of Babel was founded about the year B.C. 2,230. But as early as B.C. 2,000, there were clay tablets in the Babylonian Library, now preserved in the British Museum, which contained the story of the Tower-building. It must have been ancient history already at that time. Everything considered, the great dispersion can hardly have taken place much later than B.C. 2,500. (George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955-1961], 6: 29.)
Concerning these basic sources, Sorenson cautions:
“Historical texts and archaeological research on Mesopotamia, their homeland, tell us that big pyramid-shaped temple platforms called ziggurats were being erected well before 3000 B.C. fn Nothing but one of them qualifies as “the great tower” referred to in Ether 1:33. If the departure of the Jaredite party from their original home had been many centuries later than 3000 B.C. or earlier than about 3300 B.C., their account about “the great tower” would sound odd in terms of Near Eastern history. (Incidentally, the zero date from which the Mesoamerican calendars were calculated was 3113 B.C., which might or might not be a coincidence.) We have already seen that the earliest evidences of some of the basic indicators of civilization—stable agriculture, village life, and ceramic—date in Mesoamerica to about 3000 B.C.
There is no sound evidence, by the way, to support the idea from outmoded biblical commentaries that the great tower (“of Babel”) dated to near 2200 B.C., as some Latter-day Saints continue to believe. Indeed, contrary data abound.” (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985], 116.)
Palmer attempts to create a date for the Tower using Mesoamerican sources correlated with a Biblical reconstruction, arriving at a departure date of 2700 BC. (David A. Palmer. In Search of Cumorah. Horizon Publishers and Distributors. 1981, p. 224-5). In doing so he uses a different zero date than does Sorenson, and he also accepts year intervals listed in Ixtlilxochitl and the in the Codex Rios (Palmer uses the less typical designation of the “Vatican Codex.”). Unfortunately, Palmer uses both Ixtlilxochitl and the Codex Rios rather indiscriminately. For instance, he assumes that the final destruction by earthquakes in the Rios is associated with the destruction at the time of Christ in 34 AD (David A. Palmer. In Search of Cumorah. Horizon Publishers and Distributors. 1981, p. 224). However, he doesn’t account for the fact that Ixtlilxochitl makes the Earthquake Sun the second destruction instead of the fifth, as in the Rios. Palmer is apparently unaware that both the order of the Suns and the duration assigned to them are hardly fixed parts of the Mesoamerican legend (see Brant Gardner. “Reconstructing the Ethnohistory of Myth: A Structural Study of the Aztec ‘Legend of the Suns.” Symbol and Meaning Beyond the Closed Community: Essays in Mesoamerican Ideas. Ed. Gary H. Gossen. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1986, pp. 19-34). Unfortunately, Palmer’s reconstruction of dates, while appearing impressive, is built upon simplistic readings of texts that are simply selected because they fit his preconceived notion of the timing.
Combining all of this information, we have Sorenson’s archaeological dating to place the Tower somewhere around 3000 BC. We have a chronological correlation in this commentary that would place Jared around 1870-1930 BC. That gives us a gap of over a thousand years where we cannot easily match the Jaredite chronology to the plausible real world events. What kind of problem does that give us?
There are two types of problems. One, of course, could be the reconstruction of the chronology itself. Dating with any precision that far in prehistory is hardly a precise science. Palmer, for instance, is able to make all of his dating work to match the Jaredite king list with a Tower of Babel date of 2700 BC. (David A. Palmer. In Search of Cumorah. Horizon Publishers and Distributors. 1981, p. 128). Sorenson would argue that Palmer’s date for the Tower is not early enough, and I would argue that his dating of Ether is too early.
The second problem we could have lies in the king-list itself. There is the one location where there is agreement both in the list and the description that Morianton is a descendant of Riplakish (see Ether 1:23 and Ether 10:11). Assuming that every other part of the genealogy were absolutely accurate, we have this location where there is a plausible collapsing of generations. The other locations of descendance in the original list (Ether 1:6 and 16) suggest that there might be other gaps, even though the parallel descriptive text uses a more direct father-son description of the relationship. In other words, the genealogy could be wrong. The history of such genealogies in the world suggest that this is at least a possibility, particularly for a lineage that covers two thousand years.