Do proposed literary sources explain the Book of Mormon?

There is an overlap: View of the Hebrews argues that Native Americans descend from Israelites. The Book of Mormon identifies Lehi’s family with Joseph’s line, while 3 Nephi separately speaks of other tribes and Israel’s gathering. Those are related themes, not identical accounts.

You name the real thematic overlap and compare the actual claims without flattening them into one story.

They say exactly the same thing: all Native Americans came from the lost ten tribes.

The Book of Mormon passages distinguish Lehi’s lineage from its separate references to other tribes. Avoid attributing the same formulation to both books.

The Late War describes Jackson taking two thousand volunteers; Alma describes two thousand young men who entered a covenant to defend their country, the sons of people who had covenanted not to take up arms. That numerical overlap is worth examining, while the narratives remain distinct.

You acknowledge the shared number without calling Hunt’s volunteers young men or erasing Alma’s covenant context.

The identical number proves Joseph copied The Late War.

A shared number cannot establish copying by itself. We would also need to assess the wording, wider context, chronology, access, and whether the parallel is distinctive.

They show a resemblance, but both texts use KJV language and an “ancient history” style. To argue borrowing, I would compare distinctive wording and passages beyond the general biblical register.

You separate an observable style resemblance from a demonstrated textual relationship.

Any KJV-like wording in the Book of Mormon must have come from The Late War.

KJV language was widely available. A resemblance to biblical style does not single out this one possible source.

Earlier reading could explain why the stories aren’t word-for-word matches. I’d compare the whole scenes and ask which details point to Hunt. The blast explains both the smoke and flying rocks at Little York, and the Bible already links darkness and an earthquake to Christ’s death.

This takes the memory theory seriously and asks whether the details distinguish Hunt from other sources. Check whether a cluster really adds evidence beyond what one event or a shared tradition would already explain.

If he had no book open during dictation, earlier influence is ruled out.

A witness to dictation can speak to what was present at that session. The theory is about reading before the session.

I’d count the sound, rocks, and smoke as three independent reasons to think Joseph read Hunt.

In Hunt all three effects follow from one explosion. A cluster can carry weight, but counting each part separately exaggerates the evidence when they tend to occur together.

It establishes chronological possibility. A stronger source claim would need evidence that the relevant text or ideas could reach Joseph, plus specific parallels that are better explained by borrowing than by common biblical language or shared cultural ideas.

You distinguish chronology and possible access from evidence of transmission and dependence.

Yes. If a book came first, it must have been the source.

Chronological priority is necessary for direct borrowing, but it does not show access, transmission, or dependence.