Responding to Linguistic Evidence as captured on 2024-09-22.

[very rough draft]

Linguistic Evidence

Names in the Book of Mormon

There are 188 unique names in the Book of Mormon that are not found in the Bible. Many of these names are Hebrew or Egyptian in origin, which is to be expected for a people who emigrated from ancient Jerusalem in 600 B.C.

First, we should note that, according to Sandra Tanner, 141 names found in the Book of Mormon are from the Bible. She noted some patterns with many of the others:

Many names not found in the Bible seem to be made up by re-arranging various syllables or changing the ending of Bible names. For example, the Bible speaks of Abinadab, the Book of Mormon mentions Abinadi and Abinadom.. Smith’s book also uses the Biblical Aminadab and a modified Aminodi. The Bible mentions Kish, the Book of Mormon has Akish and Kishcumen. The Bible has Gimzo, the Book of Mormon speaks of Gimgimno. Besides using the Biblical name Helam, Smith’s book expands it to Helaman. The Book of Mormon uses the Biblical name of Antipas and builds on it to form these Book of Mormon names: Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Antiomno, Antion, Antionah, Antionum, Antiparah and Antipus. Some seem to be simply different spellings. Melech in the Bible becomes Melek in the Book of Mormon. In like manner, Nahum becomes Nahom.

And,

More names are created by adding such endings as “hah.” The Book of Mormon has the names Nephi and Nephihah; Moroni and Moronihah; Ammon and Ammonihah; Mathoni and Mathonihah. Some names seem to be just extensions of the same Book of Mormon word. For example, Antion seems to be the base for Antionah, Antionum and Antiomno. Book of Mormon Shim is expanded to Shimnilon. Corianton is slightly changed to make the additional names of Coriantor, Coriantum and Coriantumr. Smith’s book uses the Biblical word Gideon and shortens it to Gid, then expands it to Giddianhi, Giddonah, Gidgiddonah and Gidgiddoni. Riplah seems to be the base for Riplakish and Ripliancum.

Others have noted potential sources for ~200 Book of Mormon names.

Because there are so many names in the Book of Mormon, and if we allow near matching, then we are bound to run into coincidences of varying strength, just by chance. See the Laws of the Improbability Principle. I will list out obvious ways these names could have been derived from the Bible or early 1800s religious milieu. Although this exercise does not diffuse a potential parallel with an ancient name/root, it gives us an alternative model. Randomly made up names would still likely match some of these various roots with varying degrees of rigor just by virtue of being similar to Biblical names, for example.

[Also, need to elaborate and/or cite chapter 9, from New Approaches to the BoM, especially Table 1 . Book of Mormon Names Divided into Stems and Affixes. Also, see List of code names in the D\&C (noticed by TruthIsAntiMormon)]

Potential Egyptian Book of Mormon Names Potential Old-World Connection

  1. Aha – Son of the Nephite commander-in-chief.
    • Aha – A name of the first Pharaoh; it means “warrior” and is a common word.
    • “Aha” is found as an exclamation in Psalm 35:21 and Ezekiel 25:3. It’s also very similar to names from the Bible like “Ahaz.”
  2. Aminadab – Nephite missionary in the time of the judges.
    • Amanathabi – Chief of a Canaanite city under Egyptian domination. This name is “reformed” Egyptian.
    • Aminadab is in Matthew 1:4.
  3. Ammon – The commonest name in the Book of Mormon.
    • Ammon (Amon, Amun) – The commonest name in the Egyptian Empire: the great universal God of the Empire.
    • Ammon is a name used frequently in the Bible.
  4. Ammoni-hah – Name of a country and city.
    • Ammuni-ra – Prince of Beyrut under Egyptian rule.
    • Ammon (common biblical name) + “ihah” (a super common ending used by the BoM author)
  5. Cameni-hah – A Nephite general
    • Khamuni-ra – Amarna a personal name, perhaps the equivalent of Ammuni-ra.
    • “Camon” is in Judges 10:5 (“Cam[e]n” + “ihah”)
  6. Cezoram – Nephite chief judge.
    • Chiziri – Egyptian governor of a Syrian city.
    • “Ce” + “Zoram” (a character from 1 Nephi 4:35). The “Ce” prefix could have been to invoke the idea of _Ce_sar.
  7. Giddonah – a) high priest who judged Korihor, b) father of Amulek.
    • Dji-dw-na – The Egyptian name for Sidon.
    • Similar to Me_giddon_ (Zechariah 12:11) plus the “ah” ending.
  8. Gidgiddoni and Gidgiddonah – Nephite generals.
    • Djed-djhwt-iw-f and Djed-djhwti-iw-s plus ankh – An Egyptian proper name meaning “Thoth hath said: he shall live,” and “Thoth hath said: she shall live,” respectively. On this pattern the two Nephite names mean “Thoth hath said I shall live,” and “Thoth hath said: we shall live,” respectively.
    • Repeat the first syllable “gid”. Swap “ah” for “i” on Gidgiddoni. Also, Gid itself shares the same prefix as Gideon, one of the 12 tribes of Israel
  9. Giddianhi – Robber chief and general.
    • Djhwti-ankhi – “Thoth is my life”; see detail listed above.
    • Slightly different spelling for Gideon (12 tribe of Israel with “hi” suffix
  10. Gimgim-no – City of Gimgim, compare Biblical No-Amon, “City of Amon.
    • Kenkeme – Egyptian city, cf. Kipkip, seat of the Egyptian dynasty in Nubia.
    • Similar to Gimzo (2 Chronicles 28:18); “Gim” is repeated twice.
  11. Hem – Brother of the earlier Ammon.
    • Hem – A title meaning “servant,” specifically of Ammon, as in the title Hem tp n ‘Imn, “chief servant of Ammon” held by the high priest of Thebes.
    • Similar to Ham (Genesis 5:32). Phonetically similar to “Him.” “hem” is a common word/article in the Bible. Also a simple riff on the “H” sound and the “M” sound so common in BoM names.
  12. Helaman – Great Nephite prophet.
    • Her-amon – “in the presence of Amon,” as in the Egyptian proper name Heri-i-her-imn. The Semitic “l” is always written “r” in the Egyptian language, which has no “l.” Conversely, an Egyptian “r” is often written “l” in Semitic languages.
    • Similar to Helam (2 Samuel 10:16).
  13. Himni – A son of King Mosiah.
    • Hmn – A name of the Egyptian hawk-god, symbol of the emperor.
    • Similar to Shimhi (1 Chronicles 8:21).
  14. Korihor – A political agitator who was seized by the people of Ammon.
    • Kherihor (also written Khurhor, etc.) – A great high priest of Ammon who seized the throne of Egypt at Thebes, cir. 1085 b.c.
    • Similar to Korah (Numbers 16:1) also VoTH pg 90.
  15. Manti – The name of a Nephite soldier, a land, a city, and a hill.
    • Manti – The Semitic form of an Egyptian proper name, e.g., Manti-mankhi, a prince in Upper Egypt cir. 650 b.c. It is a late form of Month, god of Hermonthis.
    • Similar to “anti” (just add an “M” sound which is common for BoM names). and “Manna”
  16. Mathoni – A Nephite disciple.
    • Maitena, Mattenos, etc. – Two judges of Tyre, who at different times made themselves king, possibly under Egyptian auspices.
    • A mix of Matthew (Matthew 9:9) and Lamoni (Alma 17:21).
  17. Morianton – The name of a Nephite city and its founder, cf. the Nephite province Moriantum.
    • Meriaton and Meriamon – Names of Egyptian princes, “Beloved of Aton” and “Beloved of Amon” respectively.
    • Similar to Moriah (Genesis 22:2).
  18. Nephi – Founder of the Nephite nation.
    • Nehi, Nehri – Famous Egyptian noblemen. Nfy was the name of an Egyptian captain. Since the Book of Mormon insists on “ph,” Nephi is closer to Nihpi, the original name of the god Pa-nepi, which may even have been Nephi.
    • The word Nephi is found in and given some significance in the Apocrypha in 2 Maccabees 1:36.
  19. Paanchi – Son of Pahoran, Sr., and pretender to the chief-judgeship.
    • Paanchi – Son of Kherihor, a) chief high priest of Amon, b) ruler of the south who conquered all of Egypt and was high priest of Amon at Thebes.
    • The Egyptian King was named Piankhi, not Paanchi. Paanchi itself is a fairly unique name, but it’s not a great match for the Egyptian Piankhi (instead, it sounds more greek with the “chi” ending). Paanchi might be pronounced “pee-ANG-kee,” while Paanchi is closer to “pah-AHN-chee”. The name comes in the midst of a constellation of “Pa-“ names (Pahoran and Pacumeni), and it only requires doubling the “a” and the addition of a new “chi” ending to produce. Other possible inspiration for the Paan beginning is “Pæan”, another name for Apollo (discussed in lots of books before 1830, here’s one example). “paan” is listed in a grammar of the Delaware Indians published in Philadelphia in 1827.
  20. Pahoran – a) great chief judge, b) son of the same.
    • Pa-her-an – Ambassador of Egypt in Palestine, where his name has the “Reformed” reading Pahura; in Egyptian as Pa-her-y it means “the Syrian” or Asiatic.
    • Similar to Paran (Genesis 21:21)
  21. Pacumeni – Son of Pahoran.
    • Pakamen – An Egyptian proper name meaning “blind man”; also Pamenches (Gk. Pachomios), commander of the south and high priest of Horus.
    • A combination of other BoM names: Pachus (Alma 62:6) and Cumeni (Alma 56:14)
  22. Pachus – Revolutionary leader and usurper of the throne.
    • Pa-ks and Pach-qs – Egyptian proper names. Compare Pa-ches-I, “he is praised.”
    • Some mixture of Paulus (Acts 13:7)? Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17)? Pontus (Acts 2:9)?
  23. Sam – Brother of Nephi.
    • Sam Tawi – Egyptian “uniter of the lands,” a title taken by the brother of Nehri upon mounting the throne.
    • Joseph Smith had a younger brother named Samuel (Sam was a common short form at that time)
  24. Seezor-am and Zeezr-om – A depraved judge, and a lawyer, resp., the latter also the name of a city.
    • Zoser, Zeser, etc. – A third Dynasty ruler, one of the greatest Pharaohs.
    • A simple prefix “See” added to “Zoram”. “Rom is a common root used in BoM names. Zeezrom is similar to Seezoram just with the “o” dropped. Note that Seezoram is also similar to Cezoram (Helaman 5:1)
  25. Zemna-ri-hah – Robber chief.
    • Zmn-ha-re – An Egyptian proper name: the same elements as the above in a different order–a common Egyptian practice.
    • Similar to Zemaraim (Joshua 18:22)
  26. Zeniff – Ruler of Nephite colony.
    • Znb, Snb – Very common elements in Egyptian proper names, cf. Senep-ta.
    • Similar to Zenan (Joshua 15:37) and Ziph (Joshua 15:24)

Most, if not all, of the listed connections were unknown in 1830.

As demonstrated, somewhat who had been steeped in the Bible or from Joseph Smith’s milieu could have constructed the above names by riffing on names he would have read or heard before. The various putative connections to ancient names could easily be a by-product of being somewhat similar to Bible names.

Nephi – Listed in the table above. John Gee alternately argues that “Nephi” could be derived from the ancient Egyptian “nfr,” meaning “good” or “beautiful”.2 If so, isn’t it interesting that Nephi repeats the theme of “goodness” throughout his writings? That would make a creative triple pun3 in the first verse of the Book of Nephi:

“I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.”

How did Joseph Smith create a triple pun in a dead language in the first verse of the Book of Mormon?

There are lots of ways to make connections between things, even when they may not have been intentional (i.e., a pattern can be observed but it may not have been intended by the author). For example, it seems that the word Nephi is introduced in the apocrypha as a way to refer to a cleansing (“And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi.”) Cleanliness and purity is a dominant theme in both books of Nephi (consider 1 Nephi 10:21 as an example “if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever”, and similarly 1 Nephi 15:33–34, 1 Nephi 12:10, 1 Nephi 13:37, 1 Nephi 15:36, 2 Nephi 2:9–10, 2 Nephi 9:14, 2 Nephi 9:23, 2 Nephi 13:26, and 2 Nephi 31:5–10). 2 Nephi Chapter 31 is focused on obtaining and keeping a remission of sins and then chapter 33 (the closing of 2 Nephi) ends with some emphasis on cleanliness where Nephi “speaketh harshly against sin” and calls to mind, in his last verse the judgement bar1 (where cleanliness will become paramount!). The connection is even more significant since the word “Nephi” is the last word of the verse in which it appears in the apocrypha!

Paanchi – As listed in the table above, in Helaman 1, Paanchi is one of the three sons of Pahoran seeking the chief judgeship. Paanchi is the same name as one of the most well-known kings in Egyptian history.4 Paanchi is not mentioned in the Bible. His name and history remained unknown to scholars until the end of the nineteenth century. Hugh Nibley comments that he was a “contemporary of Isaiah and a chief actor in the drama of Egyptian history at a time in which that history was intimately involved in the affairs of Palestine.”5

How did Joseph Smith know about a famous Egyptian king who was unknown to scholars until after Joseph’s death?

  • It is not clear that Paanchi is actually a reference (or equivalent to) Piankhi.
  • Joseph may have been derived such a name from any number of other sources of inspiration (as discussed above). The LATL question leans on an unsubstantiated assumption (i.e., that Joseph could not have produced such a word as Paanchi without it being sourced from an ancient record).

[Currently trying to get an assessment of the strength of this claim from Egyptologists]

Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni – As listed in the table above. Evidence Central reports that:

“At the beginning of the book of Helaman, readers encounter a confusing cluster of three similar sounding names: two men (a father and a son) named Pahoran, as well as the son’s two brothers Paanchi and Pacumeni (Helaman 1:2–3). Although this constellation of names would be an unlikely choice for a good fiction writer, Hugh Nibley noticed that it rings true for a record written in ‘reformed Egyptian’ (Mormon 9:32–34). ‘A striking coincidence,’ Nibley noted, ‘is the predominance among both Egyptian and Nephite judge names of the prefix Pa-. In late Egyptian, this [prefix] is extremely common.’ Each of the[se] names, and not just the initial pa- (Egyptian pꜢ- = “the”) prefix, bears striking resemblance to Egyptian names.”6 (emphasis added)

If Joseph Smith were author, then we do not require him to be a “good fiction writer” and hence he might produce such a cluster of similar names if he is grasping for new names during dictation. In addition, we might expect any number of these kinds of coincidences by chance (see the improbability principle).

The Book of Mormon also has several Hebrew names that are not in the Bible. They include Sariah, Alma, Abish, Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam. The connection these names have to ancient Hebrew was unknown in Joseph Smith’s day.7

  • Sariah - similar to Sarai (Genesis 11:29)
  • Alma - common male name from Joseph’s milieu.
  • Abish - Abishai (1 Samuel 26:6)
  • Aha - found as an exclamation in Psalm 35:21 and Ezekiel 25:3. Similar to Bible names like “Ahaz.”
  • Ammonihah - Ammon (Genesis 19:39) + “ihah”
  • Chemish - Chemosh (Numbers 21:29); Chemim View of the Hebrews pg 90
  • Hagoth - Haggith (2 Samuel 3:4)
  • Himni - Shimhi (1 Chronicles 8:21)
  • Isabel - Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31)
  • Jarom - Joram (1 Samuel 8:10)
  • Josh - Joshua (Exodus 17:9)
  • Luram - Ludim (Genesis 10:13) and Ramah (Joshua 18:25)
  • Mathoni - Matthew (Matthew 9:9) and Lamoni (Alma 17:21)
  • Mathonihah - Mathoni (3 Nephi 19:4) + “ihah”
  • Muloki - Amalek (Genesis 36:12)
  • Sam - JS had a younger brother named Samuel and Sam was a common short form for Samuel at that time.

Alma - Alma was widely seen as a woman’s name with Semitic or Latin roots. Critics panned Joseph Smith for this “obvious” mistake.

“Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden—hardly a fitting name for a man.”8 – a prominent Evangelical author, Walter Martin (1978).

Since 1830, evidence has confirmed that Alma is an ancient Semitic male name. This evidence includes the 1961 discovery of the Bar Kokhba letters, where “Alma, son of Judah,” is named in ancient Israel.9

How did Joseph Smith know that Alma was an ancient male name in ancient Israel? Why did Joseph Smith not amend the Book of Mormon when his critics mocked him? Have any critics apologized to Joseph Smith yet?

Alma was a common male name in Joseph Smith’s vicinity, as demonstrated here and discussed on this Mormonism Live podcast episode.

Sariah - Critics mocked Joseph for naming Lehi’s wife Sariah, which was understood at the time to be an ancient male Hebrew name. That is until the name Sariah appeared on papyri in the Egyptian Jewish community of Elephantine, dating to around 500 BC for two women.10

I am not aware of the evidence suggesting that “Sariah” was understood to be a male name in or around 1830. The name (as spelled) is not in the Bible (as mentioned above), so it would require a person to be aware that words spelled somewhat differently were in fact necessarily equivalent (how aware of this was Joseph Smith?). Furthermore, when Chadwick first publishes the finding of Sariah (śry) as a female name in 1993, he only notes that “The skeptic might suggest that this name was an invention of Joseph Smith, since Sariah does not appear in the Bible as a female personal name.” (emphasis added). So the basis for the surprise/tension behind this point seems more imagined than real/demonstrated.

How did Joseph Smith know that Israelite women from Egypt also carried the name of Sariah around the same time as Sariah in the Book of Mormon? Wouldn’t Joseph’s only source for Sariah (Seraiah) have been men in the Old Testament?

The question implies that JS could only have derived such a name via an ancient record, but since Sariah is a very simple riff on the name Sarai, and Sarai was a significant character in the Bible, then something like that could have been the source.

Jershon – In Alma 27:22, the Nephites give the converted Anti-Nephi-Lehites a piece of land in their territory. “This land Jershon is the land which we give unto our brethren for an inheritance.” (emphasis added) How interesting is it that the word “Jershon” is likely Hebrew for “place of inheritance”?11 Doesn’t this make a creative play on words in the Book of Mormon? How familiar was Joseph Smith with ancient Hebrew in 1829?

“Jershon” is similar to the name “Gershon” in the Bible (Genesis 46:11). Interestingly, Gershon is mentioned in the same chapter and general context of Jacob/Israel going down and inheriting a new land (for them), Egypt (see 46:4–11).

Update: Critics harp on “mistakes” in the Book of Mormon until researchers find evidence to support its ancient origins. As more ancient linguistic connections are uncovered, critics rarely credit the Book of Mormon. Instead, they seem to double down on the increasingly shorter list of “mistakes” in the Book of Mormon.

We expect that as more is discovered about the ancient world (and as BYU researchers trawl through that information looking for connections), then we expect that these kinds of parallels would occur by chance (basically, there are more possible things to hit as that knowledge base grows so more things could hit at random). The fact that some of the “mistakes” are not adequately resolved is exactly what the naturalist model might predict for a modern BoM. Remaining “mistakes” are the only way for researchers to determine a book is modern that is trying to assert it is of ancient origin. One can read into motivations whatever they like, but a dispassionate view of the data would necessarily be drawn towards the remaining “mistakes” since they potentially hold the key of situating the book with modern authorship.

Reformed Egyptian and Hebrew

In 721 BC, the Assyrians invaded the northern kingdom (Israel) and took thousands into captivity. From that point on, the northern tribes were lost to history. Thousands sought refuge in the southern kingdom (Judah). 120 years later, it is plausible that Lehi would not have known his lineage from the tribe of Manasseh.

In the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon, Nephi informs the reader that he is making a record “in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2)—that is oddly specific.

“Such propositions would likely have been scorned in Joseph Smith’s day; doctors of theology in the early 1800s would have based their views of Egyptian-Israelite relations primarily upon the Israelites’ seeming disdain for Egyptian culture as reflected in the Bible.” (emphasis added) – John S. Thompson (Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 2004)12

That may be true (although Thompson does not substantiate the claim [can’t currently login to archive.org to verify whether Nibley substantiates this]). However, a separate strain of thought viewed the structures in the Americas as having been influenced by the Egyptians, so the author of the BoM may have been writing etiologically—how does one explain the Egyptian influence in the Americas? Examples of this strain of thought can be seen in Barbara Simon’s 1829 Hope of Israel, pg 110:

This tradition [echoes of Moses in Quetzalcoatl], dim and imperfect as it is, of their ancient lawgiver, together with the structure of their pyramids, exactly similar in form and appropriation to those of Egypt declare in favour of the Hebrew origin of this people

Scholars are still learning about Egypt’s cultural influence in Israel during Lehi’s day.13 Artifacts with Egyptian characters dating back to that period show the widespread usage of Egyptian in Israel. Critics viewed Egyptian and Israelite relations through an 1830’s lens. They mocked Joseph Smith for this apparent mistake as they perceived Israel and Egypt to be on more hostile terms.

I’m not aware of any substantiation for the idea that people were mocking Joseph Smith for this [need to validate it’s not in Lehi in the Desert]. And, as I’ve demonstrated, there was interest, among some at least, for finding connections between Israel and Egypt in the manifestations seen in the Americas (e.g., pyramid architecture).

On the surface, an uninspired Joseph Smith would have likely suspected that Hebrew was the language of Lehi. How did Joseph understand Egypt’s cultural influence in Israel in 600 BC? How did he come up with what turns out to be a very plausible narrative in the book?

As mentioned, the storyline with Egyptian influence could have been generated as an etiology (i.e., an attempt to account for perceived Egyptian influence in the Americas).

Caractors Document

Historians believe14 that John Whitmer copied characters (given to him by Joseph) from the Book of Mormon in the “Caractors” document.

Critics have dissected the Caractors document to make the characters seem less authentic and ancient than they are. By twisting, slightly altering, and flipping characters, Charles Shook created this chart (on the next page) in Cumorah Revisited (1910). Critics joke that “reformed Egyptian” is just “deformed English.” Source: Page 539 of Charles Shook’s book Cumorah Revisited (1910)

Here is the problem: The argument is deceptive. Robert Boylan uses the same logic to take the following transcription of Demotic Egyptian to make it look like an English sentence.15 “Demotic is really deformed English.” Source: Robert Boylan at https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/08/on-deformed-egyptian-in-anthon.html

This is a great control experiment that certainly weakens somewhat the demonstration of how the characters in the Caractors document seem to merely be modified English characters. What has not been explored here is the ease with which one or the other is capable of being transformed into English. (i.e., it may still be the case that turning the characters in the Caractors document is easier than with other languages). But noone has systematically performed that kind of (admittedly difficult) analysis.

Also, to characterize an argument as “deceptive” suggests the author knows that the people making the argument knowingly realized that this could be done with other alphabets and chose to withhold or inappropriately downplay that information. I do not think this has been demonstrated.

Here is my attempt to do the same thing with the Paleo-Hebrew script. In about 15 minutes, I downloaded a Paleo Hebrew font in Word and formed an English-looking sentence. [image of Paleo-Hebrew characters carefully arranged to give the reading “Paleo if deformed English” follows]

Critics may find it uncomfortable that many characters in the Caractors document have ancient origins. As stated previously, parallels are generally not conclusive proof of authenticity. However, how do critics explain that characters in the Carators document resemble ancient American and Egyptian characters?

I do not find this uncomfortable at all. Showing that a relatively minor subset of characters are similar to characters in ancient Egyptian is interesting but not by itself conclusive. How frequently do these characters match (or nearly match) characters in any other given language? This would give us a baseline by which to judge the significance of these similarities. To be sure, we expect some fraction of characters made up at random to match (or nearly match) ancient characters—at random—because there are only so many kinds of very distinct strokes and marks one can make for characters.

Geologist, civil engineer, and professional translator Jerry Grover provides an over 400-pageanalysis (available for free online) of the Caractors document and its potential connections to ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and Mayan languages. The following pages contain samples of visuals and commentary that are found on Phil Michel’s supportingevidences.net website, in the reformed Egyptian and Hebrew sections.

Some characters from the Caractors document compared to Egyptian.

Characters from the Caractors document compared to characters from the statue of Serabit-el-Khadim on the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.

How did a farmer from upstate New York, with limited resources and education, manage to create characters that have been discovered in ancient writings?

This represents an impressive amount of work, and certainly should be considered.

  1. Correspondences do not necessarily indicate a genetic relationship.
  2. If this is a valid analysis (which it very well may be), why are other BYU/LDS researchers with the appropriate training not validating or advancing it? (Grover does indicate an Egyptologist validated the Egyptian nature of some of the characters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIGSTWsK5A).
  3. Grover acknowledges that translating this document is fraught in a number of ways (see the intro do Chapter 3, page 19).
  4. A correspondence in meaning between the Caractors and similar kinds of text from the BoM do not necessarily mean the Caractors of the BoM are ancient—both could have originated with Joseph Smith.

In 1956, letters from an exchange with an Egyptologist were published in the Saints’ Herald, the RLDS Magazine. In it, the Egyptologist analyzed the Caractors document:

1.) This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the “cursive hieroglyphic” as used in the Book Of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic.

2.) The writing purports to be a kind of cursive, as if copied from a writing with pen on papyrus. However, it fails to conform to the normal pattern of cursive writings, in which the pen remains on the papyrus, to join together individual characters into groups, such as syllsbles or words. The ers in this specimen stand suspiciously separated from each other.

3.) I have not subjected the specimen to an association analysis, to determine if certain individual characters show an affinity for other characters, as our English q- regularly is followed by -u, as our words “the, this, that, there, then” tend to form a recognizable pattern. I did check three characters (A,B,C) on the copy and found that their associates were suspiciously varied. In any regular context, as in our Bible, personal names and common nouns will recur in a kind of pattern. That kind of pattern is not visible here.

[Grover may account for these somehow, since he has published a pdf of the statements to academia.org].

Dan Vogel produced an analysis of the Caractors document which he published as videos to youtube:

  1. Joseph Smith Makes a Sample of Characters (pt 1)
  2. Book of Mormon Characters Examined (pt 2)
  3. How Joseph Smith Invented Reformed Egyptian (pt 3) Postulates how the author of the Caractors document might have produced the various caractors.

Uto-Aztecan Language

Linguist Brian D. Stubbs published a study identifying 1528 connections between the Uto-Aztecan and Semitic/Egyptian languages.16 He estimates that approximately 30 % - 40 % of the Uto-Aztecan language is derived from Semitic and Egyptian languages.17 He concludes that the Uto-Aztecan and Near Eastern languages integrated between 2500 and 3000 years ago.18

Don’t these linguistic connections make a stronger case for the Book of Mormon? Didn’t Moroni say that there were Egyptian and Hebrew elements in their speech that were “altered by us”?

I think Stubbs’s work is interesting, but it seems far from conclusive to me. For instance, we might expect him to be able to publish his research in peer reviewed journals and if the data and arguments are strong then it would convince other linguists of his conclusions. I am not aware that this has happened.

“And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.” – (emphasis added) Mormon 9:32–33

Do parallels between Uto-Aztecan and Semitic/Egyptian languages absolutely prove the Book of Mormon’s divine authenticity? They do not. However, why do we continue to discover more things supporting the Book of Mormon’s claims if it was fabricated by a no-name man in 1829?

[need to link to discussion about why additional discoveries are still being made, even if the BoM is a modern book.]

Voices in the Book of Mormon

Lewis Theobald produced a play called Double Falsehood in 1727. He claimed its author was the great William Shakespeare. The problem is that Shakespeare had passed away over 100 years earlier. Theobald’s claim was nearly impossible to prove. Most skeptics believed Lewis Theobald made up the claim to bolster ticket sales. Some believed that Shakespeare and John Fletcher co-wrote the play (they had written a couple of plays together early in Shakespeare’s career). Unfortunately, the original manuscript was destroyed in a fire. Without the original handwriting, no one could prove the authorship. Until recently, most believed the Double Falsehood was a Theobald production. Then in 2015, researchers from the University of Texas leveraged computing power to solve the mystery. Using a sophisticated computer model, they analyzed Shakespeare’s, Theobald’s, and Fletcher’s language, style, and voice. From this, they could create a psychological signature for each author. The model could determine who wrote Double Falsehood.19 They determined that Shakespeare likely authored the first three acts—the final two being authored by Flecher. Theobald’s editorial hand was also identified.

John Hilton III uses a similar method in his book Voices of the Book of Mormon. After a decade of research, John identifies the “linguistic fingerprints of many of the major speakers in the Book of Mormon.” (emphasis added)20 Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni compiled or wrote most of the Book of Mormon. However, there are other authors quoted. Sometimes, these quotes are lengthy sections or whole chapters. These voices include Jacob, Alma, Abinadi, Nephi (son of Helaman), and Jesus Christ. John’s research shows a wide range of variety from the different authors of the Book of Mormon. Also, the linguistic fingerprints of the Book of Mormon authors are distinct from Joseph Smith’s voice in his other writings. 19th-century authors, on the other hand, have limited voice diversity between different characters in their books.21 Even characters that differ from others in the same book written by typical 19th-century authors usually cluster around a specific range of voice diversity.

How did Joseph Smith remember and keep the different voices of the Book of Mormon authors distinct?

The book is mostly modular, and there are only a few main characters who are given a significant voice. Because of theory of mind (which is very developed in humans, generally), it’s not particularly difficult to imagine a character with a distinctive voice and way/manner of speaking. This is not a skill limited to authors.

How did Joseph Smith remember to have Nephi say the phrase “My Soul Delighteth”22 eleven times while no other author in the Book of Mormon uses that phrase?

Theory of mind: Joseph imagined a character and what he might say and think. Then he dictated them saying those kinds of things.

Why does Jesus Christ use the word “baptize” more than anyone else in the Book of Mormon?23

Jesus in 3 Nephi was talking about a lot of doctrinal manners and given a central role in establishing ordinances and their purposes. This makes sense given his role.

How did Joseph Smith remember to distinguish the voice of Jacob in 2 Nephi 9-10 from the voice of Nephi in 2 Nephi 4-5 and 11 if both were his creations?24

Theory of mind. The author likely envisioned Jacob and Nephi as distinct humans with distinct personalities and concerns.

While the voice diversity is impressive, John Hilton also identifies the layers of intertextuality within the Book of Mormon, which adds to its complexity. For example, when Alma was teaching his son Corianton (Alma 39-42), he quoted Abinadi’s teachings and phrases hundreds of pages earlier (from Mosiah 12-13) that applied to Corianton’s concerns.25

How did Joseph Smith create a book with so many layers of complexity and intertextuality?26 With his limited education, in less than 90 days, in one draft, with no manuscripts to consult, off the top of his head, no less?

It’s difficult to comment on this since I’m not going to buy a ~$28 book in order to evaluate the contents (if someone sends me a copy then I will evaluate it in depth).

In general, the Book of Mormon is fairly modular in creation. The relatively few references from one part of the text to another can be explained by Joseph remembering memorable aspects of what he had dictated earlier, or perhaps because he had been going through the growing manuscript itself. Nothing prevented him from examining the manuscript and there is evidence that he and Oliver were consulting the growing manuscript in at least on instance.

Jonathan Cannon summarizes the various stylometry arguments for the Book of Mormon. His article “Book of Mormon Stylometry in Pictures and Tables”27 visually demonstrates how impressive the stylometry differences in the Book of Mormon are.

Figure 1 – A visual representation of how different voices of the Book of Mormon compare to each other and from the voice of Joseph Smith.

Figure 2 – A visual cluster of the authors that critics theorize wrote the Book of Mormon (Cowdery, Pratt, Spalding, Rigdon, Smith) and how different they are from the Book of Mormon writers.

Figure 3 – A visual cluster of 19th-century authors compared to the Book of Mormon authors.

Does literary evidence undeniably verify the Book of Mormon’s claim of divine origin? Not quite. However, isn’t it interesting? Compelling? Worth exploring?

It is interesting. I personally like the N-S-L model which advances evidence and an argument that the three major voices in the Book of Mormon are related to the

Hebraisms

Ancient Hebrew’s unique characteristics are evident even when translated into different languages. Hebraisms are when these features occur in another language.

The Book of Mormon contains hundreds of Hebraisms;28 how? Below are a small sample of some of them.

And it Came to Pass

“’And it came to pass,’ was [Joseph Smith’s] pet. If he had left that out, his bible would have been only a pamphlet.” – MARK TWAIN29

The Book of Mormon uses the phrase “and it came to pass” 1404 times. The Old Testament of the King James Version uses the same phrase 727 times. “And it came to pass” is a translation of the Hebrew word “wayehi.”30 The King James version of the Old Testament translates “wayehi” as “and it came to pass,” “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.” Likely the different phrases are used in translation for variety’s sake. In all, there are 1204 instances of “wayehi” in the Hebrew bible. The Old Testament and Book of Mormon use “and it came to pass” in the more narrative sections. The more literary parts lack that phrase.

As a more narrative text, extensive use of “it came to pass” shows the Book of Mormon’s ancient Hebrew fingerprints. How did Joseph Smith figure that out?

If-And Conditionals

If-and conditionals are a Hebrew literary form not used in modern-day English. It is not present in the Bible or found in other accessible books for Joseph Smith. Linguist Royal Skousen first identified if-and conditionals in the original version and printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith later removed most of them to make the passages more readable in 1837. The original publication of the Book of Mormon has fifteen if-and conditionals.

Royal Skousen shares:

“In English, it is common to express a conditional idea in the following manner: ‘If you come, then I will come,’ with then being optional. In Hebrew this same idea is expressed in another manner: ‘if you come, and I will come.’ This structure makes perfect sense in Hebrew but is not found in English. When Joseph Smith translated 1 Nephi 17꞉50, he dictated ‘if he should command me that I should say unto this water be thou earth, and it shall be earth.’ This non-English construction was removed from this verse by Oliver Cowdery as he copied the original manuscript to produce the printer’s manuscript. He deleted the word and, making the text read better in English. The sentence now reads: ‘if he should …, it should be earth.’”31 (emphasis added)

Other examples include Helaman 12:13-21 and Moroni 10:4.

How did Joseph Smith pick up on this ancient Hebrew literary if-and conditional when it is not correct English? A one-off could have been a grammatical error, but fifteen instances?

Chiasmus

“Chiasmus” was a popular literary device in ancient languages like Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.32 It is a type of poetic inverted parallelism. Its existence in the Book of Mormon demonstrates a high level of sophistication by Hebrew writers. Chiasmus was not consciously used in American writing until the 1850s. John Welch was the first scholar to identify chiasmus in the Book of Mormon in 1967.33 There are dozens of chiasmi in the Book of Mormon, though not every one may be deliberate. A statistical analysis from Edwards and Edwards demonstrates that the chiasmus in Alma 36, Mosiah 3:18-19, Mosiah 5:10-12, and Helaman 9:6-11 were likely created by thoughtful design.34

Here is the chiasmus in Alma 36 as it came from Joseph Smith’s lips. Its beauty and complexity make it nearly impossible to believe he made it up on the fly. Note that Jesus Christ is the center of Alma’s redemption story. (Source: Alma 36 Chiasm by Book of Mormon Central)

Isn’t Alma 36 a stunning demonstration of redemption and the power of Christ’s atonement?

How did Joseph Smith come up with Alma 36 and other chiasmus in the Book of Mormon off the top of his head with zero experience in ancient Hebrew literary forms?

Further, Allen Christenson found that chiasmus abounds in sixteen out of thirty-seven late Mayan texts written shortly after the Spanish conquest in the sixteenth century. Chiasmus is especially prevalent in Mayan historical and religious passages.35 None of the highland Mayan documents composed after 1580 include chiasmus passages.

Are Hebraisms a bullseye for the Book of Mormon? Not quite. Nevertheless, aren’t they at least interesting? Worth exploring?

Book of Mormon | Linguistic Evidence Conclusion

The further along my faith journey I traveled, the less comfortable I was with critical explanations for the Book of Mormon. I marveled at the critic’s conspiracy theory-like reconstruction of how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon. When I mentally recreated the critic’s narrative, I felt like I was left with a scenario more unbelievable than an angel simply giving golden plates to Joseph. Then, as I learned more about the linguistic connections between ancient languages and the Book of Mormon, I was even more baffled by the book. While linguistic evidence for the Book of Mormon was not enough on its own to convince me of the truth claims of the restoration, I was starting to feel unsettled as a potential atheist.

  1. LDS researcher Royal Skousen has argued that the “judgement bar” is anachronistic since this was a Medieval invention. ↩