Cutting off arms?
I've been thinking for a long time about the story in The Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 17, involving Ammon protecting King Lamoni's sheep. There's some detail in the story that has never made sense to me.
If you have read this story before, you'll know that Ammon enters the land of Ishmael, which is not friendly territory for him, as the land is inhabited by the descendants of the sons of Ishmael, who became Lamanites. Ammon was a Nephite, and to say that the Lamanites and the Nephites didn't like each other would be an understatement. So when Ammon entered the land of Ishmael, the Lamanites captured him, bound him and took him before the King and the King then asked Ammon if he wished to dwell among them. Ammon must have made a very good impression by saying that he was happy to dwell among them, even till the day he died, because the king then offered Ammon one of his daughters as his wife.
I don't really know why Ammon said no to this offer (maybe he'd seen Lamoni's daughters and they weren't too pretty) but Ammon told the King that he was happy just to be the Kings servants.
Three days later, Ammon was going with the other servants of King Lamoni to the waters of Sebus, to water the King's flocks. Some other Lamanites caused some problems for them and scattered the King's sheep, just because they thought it was fun to get the servants in to trouble (and probably killed by the King). Ammon decided this was a great time to show forth the power of God which was in him. He quickly rounded up the sheep himself (he must have held the Nephite record for cross country running) and then told the other servants to keep the sheep by the water.
Ammon then attacked the troublesome Lamanites, firstly with his sling. He killed a six of them and this naturally caused the survivors, who were armed with clubs, to try to slay him. Ammon then smote off their arms with the edge of his sword. Verse 38 summarizes the statistics of Ammons efforts. Six had fallen (presumed dead) with the sling and he slew the leader of the band with his sword, and more than a few he "smote off their arms". Now this business about being able to smite off someone's arms with a sword, without killing them, has always worried me. If their arms were cut off, wouldn't they just bleed to death, in a fairly short period of time?
And verse 39 is just plain gruesome! The servants actually carried the severed arms to the King, to show him what great power Ammon had.
What if I've been mis-reading these verses all this time? What if "smiting off their arms" meant something slightly less gruesome. What if it really meant the he dis-armed them? For them not to die quite quickly after having their arms cut off they would have had to have some pretty good and quick first aid, and probably blood transfusions. Not a mention of this in Chapter 17.
And doesn't it sound slightly more realistic if you imagine the King's servants carrying clubs (arms) in to show the King? Much less messy! There is evidence that cutting off the arms of enemies was an ancient custom in war, but there was no war at this time. And we still need to explain why the "arm-less victims" did not die.
Have a read of it yourself. Tell me what you think!
ps
I'm not the first to suggest this interpretation. Since writing the above, I found this article at Book of Mormon Central, and footnote 4 references the subject.
If you have read this story before, you'll know that Ammon enters the land of Ishmael, which is not friendly territory for him, as the land is inhabited by the descendants of the sons of Ishmael, who became Lamanites. Ammon was a Nephite, and to say that the Lamanites and the Nephites didn't like each other would be an understatement. So when Ammon entered the land of Ishmael, the Lamanites captured him, bound him and took him before the King and the King then asked Ammon if he wished to dwell among them. Ammon must have made a very good impression by saying that he was happy to dwell among them, even till the day he died, because the king then offered Ammon one of his daughters as his wife.
I don't really know why Ammon said no to this offer (maybe he'd seen Lamoni's daughters and they weren't too pretty) but Ammon told the King that he was happy just to be the Kings servants.
Three days later, Ammon was going with the other servants of King Lamoni to the waters of Sebus, to water the King's flocks. Some other Lamanites caused some problems for them and scattered the King's sheep, just because they thought it was fun to get the servants in to trouble (and probably killed by the King). Ammon decided this was a great time to show forth the power of God which was in him. He quickly rounded up the sheep himself (he must have held the Nephite record for cross country running) and then told the other servants to keep the sheep by the water.
Ammon then attacked the troublesome Lamanites, firstly with his sling. He killed a six of them and this naturally caused the survivors, who were armed with clubs, to try to slay him. Ammon then smote off their arms with the edge of his sword. Verse 38 summarizes the statistics of Ammons efforts. Six had fallen (presumed dead) with the sling and he slew the leader of the band with his sword, and more than a few he "smote off their arms". Now this business about being able to smite off someone's arms with a sword, without killing them, has always worried me. If their arms were cut off, wouldn't they just bleed to death, in a fairly short period of time?
And verse 39 is just plain gruesome! The servants actually carried the severed arms to the King, to show him what great power Ammon had.
What if I've been mis-reading these verses all this time? What if "smiting off their arms" meant something slightly less gruesome. What if it really meant the he dis-armed them? For them not to die quite quickly after having their arms cut off they would have had to have some pretty good and quick first aid, and probably blood transfusions. Not a mention of this in Chapter 17.
And doesn't it sound slightly more realistic if you imagine the King's servants carrying clubs (arms) in to show the King? Much less messy! There is evidence that cutting off the arms of enemies was an ancient custom in war, but there was no war at this time. And we still need to explain why the "arm-less victims" did not die.
Have a read of it yourself. Tell me what you think!
ps
I'm not the first to suggest this interpretation. Since writing the above, I found this article at Book of Mormon Central, and footnote 4 references the subject.
Comments
Post a Comment