According to Hugh Nibley, the genealogy in Ether, chapter one, may explain why the brother of Jared is not named. It is, of course, because “he that wrote this” (Ether) is a direct descendant of Jared. [Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites, p. 159] [Daniel Ludlow cites some other possibilities -- see the commentary on Ether 1:34]
If Ether’s record truly was a kinship record, then we have to wonder if those things pertaining to the brother of Jared (his vision of the Lord--Ether 3) were contained in a separate record other than that of Ether’s twenty four gold plates. After all, Moroni records that the vision of the brother of Jared was written and sealed up by him on commandment of the Lord (Ether 3:27-28; 4:1). [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes]
“Ether Was a Descendant of Jared Kingship List”
According to John Welch, no explicit indication is given that the Jaredite king list was written down before Ether wrote his record, but it is likely that to some extent it was. King lists similar to the one in Ether 1:6-33 appear among the earliest written records in ancient Mesopotamia. In addition, many Mesoamerican monuments have now been shown to contain historical information about royal lines, the short accounts of each king’s reign in Ether being not dissimilar in scale. [John W. Welch, “Preliminary Comments on the Sources behind the Book of Ether,” F.A.R.M.S., 1986, p. 4]
Ether 1:6-33 (Jaredite Kingship Lineage) [Illustration]: Chart: “Jaredite Kings.” [John W. & J. Gregory Welch, Charting the Book of Mormon: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching, F.A.R.M.S., Chart #31]
“Ether Was a Descendant of Jared Jaredite Names”
According to John Tvedtnes in an article written as a graduate student in Semitic linguistics and archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, there are many linguistic as well as scriptural indications that the principal tongue of the Lehite-Mulekite peoples of the Book of Mormon was essentially Hebrew, and that the names of persons and places recorded therein concerning these peoples are therefore mostly in that language.
The proper names of the Jaredites, however appear to have a different origin. After a thorough phonemic analysis of Nephite and Jaredite proper names from the perspective of Near Eastern linguistics, Tvedtnes proposes that the proper names of the Jaredites as recorded in the Book of Mormon were drawn from the Akkadian and Sumerian languages, confirming the Mesopotamian origin of that earlier people. He found that there was a different phonological structure for Jaredite names than for Nephite names, at least in the lack of certain sounds in one and their existence in the other.
There is good reason to believe that the prophet Joseph Smith attempted to transliterate directly the proper names in Mormon’s record. David Whitmer and Emma Smith gave testimony to the effect that whenever Joseph came to proper names he spelled them out for his scribe (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 1952, p. 32). Thus, for the benefit of the reader, Tvedtnes illustrates both the Nephite and the Jaredite phonemes (see illustration below).
Tvedtnes notes that Joseph Smith, the professed discoverer and translator of the Nephite record in the 1820s, could not possibly have had knowledge of those extinct Mesopotamian languages, for they did not become known to scholars until after the decipherment of the ancient cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia in the mid-nineteenth century. [John A. Tvedtnes, “A Phonemic Analysis of Nephite and Jaredite Proper Names,” S.E.H.A. Newsletter, Dec. 1977, pp. 1-7] [For the name lists used in the analysis, see Volume 6, Appendix D]
Ether 1:6-33 Ether … was a descendant of … Jared (Jaredite Names) [[Illustration]
JAREDITE PHONEMES
STOPS: p t k
b d g
FRICATIVES: s s’ h
z
RESONANTS: m n r l
VOWELS: i u
e o
a
NEPHITE PHONEMES
STOPS: p t k c(q)
b d g
FRICATIVES: s s’ x(ch) h
z
RESONANTS: m n r l
VOWELS: i u
e o
a
[John A. Tvedtnes, “A Phonemic Analysis of Nephite and Jaredite Proper Names,” S.E.H.A. Newsletter, Dec. 1977, p. 4, 6]
“Ether Was a Descendant of Jared Chronology”
According to Verneil Simmons, many ancient languages, including Hebrew, have only one word for both “son” and “descendant.” In Hebrew the word “ben” can be read either to mean “son” or “descendant,” and a scribe copying from an ancient text might not know which was intended. We find such discrepancies in the genealogies as given in the Bible (Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-31). Such discrepancy is also found in the “king-lists” of the Old Babylonian period and in other ancient records. It also occurs in the Book of Ether. Moroni began his abridgment of Ether’s record with the genealogy of the prophet. Three times in that list of 30 names the word descendant is used in place of son (Ether--Ether 1:6; Aaron--Ether 1:16; Morianton--Ether 1:23), but in the actual text, two of those men are mentioned as being “begat,” and not as being a descendant (Aaron--Ether 10:31; Ether--Ether 11:23). Conversely, the genealogy list in Ether 1 refers to two men as a son when the text uses the word descendant (Shez--Ether 1:25; 10:1; Ethem--Ether 1:9; 11:11). [Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies, p. 24]
According to Hugh Nibley, a person confined to a written text would have no means of knowing when ben should be taken to mean “son” in a literal sense and when it means merely “descendant.” The ancient Hebrews knew perfectly well when to make the distinction: like the Arabs and Maoris they kept their records in their heads, and in mentioning a particular patriarch, it was assumed that the hearer was familiar with his line down to his next important descendant, the written lists being a mere outline to establish connections between particular lines -- the name of a patriarch was enough to indicate his line, which did not have to be written out in full. [Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites, p. 159]
Because of this varied interpretation of “descendant” and “son,” and because there is still one instance where there is only a descendancy relationship mentioned--that of Morianton and Riplakish (Ether 1:23 and Ether 10:9)--chronological theories involving the Jaredite history tend to be split along three main approaches:
Theory #1: One chronological approach is to take the position that there might have been some time between Morianton and Riplakish. Among those who have proposed chronologies along this line of reasoning are John L. Sorenson (“The Years of the Jaredites”, 1969, F.A.R.M.S.); Robert F. Smith (“Jaredite Development & Chronology”, F.A.R.M.S.); and Bruce W. Warren (The Jaredite Saga). [See Appendix A]
Theory #2: Another chronological approach is taken by Randall Spackman. According to him, even though Morianton is listed as a “descendant” of Riplakish both times (Ether 1:23 and 10:9), there might not be a break in the father-son relationship. Riplakish reigned in wickedness forty-two years before being killed in a rebellion, during which his descendants were driven out of the land (Ether 10:5-8). After “the space of many years,” Morianton raised an army and made war against the usurpers for “the space of many years (10:9),” and gained the throne. The phrase “many years” is used here at least in one instance to refer to an amount of time within Morianton’s lifetime. The phrase “many years” is also used to denote time within a man’s lifetime in Ether 3;3; 9:12; 10:29-32; and 11:15. Thus, by interpreting the phrase “many years” in conformity with its usage elsewhere in the Book of Ether, the “many years” between Riplakish and Morianton could be read reasonably to present an unbroken lineage of father to son; and therefore the genealogy list in Ether 1:6-33 could reasonably present an unbroken lineage of thirty fathers and sons.
Additionally, according to Randall Spackman, we should refer to the ancient king lists of ancient Mesopotamia for clues in establishing the length of years for the average generation and hence for the time frame for the Jaredite genealogy. Gurney found that the average generation in Mesopotamia ranged between 21 and 31 years. The overall average generation for all the king lists Gurney studied was about 28 years. Thus, if a Jaredite generation averaged 28 or 31 years for each of the 30 generations listed, Jared‘s birthdate and Ether’s birthdate (representing the beginning and the end of the Jaredite lineage) could be estimated at about 1530 B.C. and about 630 B.C. respectively. Allowing 55-60 years for generations where the son was born in his father’s “old age” might push Jared’s birthdate back to about 1640 B.C. Based on these assumptions set forth, it appears logical to look for a Mesopotamian setting related to the beginning of the Jaredite journey sometime between 1600 B.C. and 1400 B.C. [Randall P. Spackman, "The Jaredite Journey to America, pp. 5-7, 15-18, unpublished] [See Appendix A]
Theory #3: This isn’t so much a theory as a cautionary comment. According to Verneil Simmons, the kingship list in the record of Ether may be an approximation. The ancient library found in the city of Nineveh contained much of the literature of the earlier Sumerians. One item of great interest was a Sumerian king list. The scribe who penned this early tablet divided his list into an antediluvian and a postdiluvian period and named eight kings who had ruled before the flood. A much later form of the same record, written in the third century B.C., lists ten names, the names themselves being quite different. In both accounts, the years of the reign of each king are given in such greatly exaggerated numbers that they cannot be taken seriously. Adding to the confusion, the Bible names nine antediluvian patriarchs. [Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies, p. 235]