Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

Anachronisms are objects, people, names, or concepts that do not belong in the correct historical timeframe. Some say that the Book of Mormon contains anachronisms and that this proves it is not an authentic ancient text. Are there anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and if so, what does that mean for its historicity?

What is an anachronism?

An anachronism is something or someone that is referenced in an incorrect historical or chronological time.[1] For example, in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar it mentions a mechanical clock in the context of ancient Rome.[2] Because mechanical clocks weren't invented until the twelfth century AD, this would be considered an anachronism.[3]

Do anachronisms in a supposedly ancient manuscript indicate that it might be fake?

No, not necessarily. Authentic historical texts may contain anachronisms for various reasons.[4] For example, despite anachronistic references to "silk," the sixteenth-century documentation of the New World by Diego de Landa is an authentic document.[5] The Bible also contains a number of anachronisms. (See table below.)

Examples of Purported Anachronisms in the Bible

Anachronism Type	Example
Translation[6]	The Old Testament of the King James Bible is a translation of Hebrew, but it contains the French word "bruit"[7] in Jeremiah 10:22.[8][9] Another example is the familiar word "candle" instead of "oil lamp" used in the King James translation.[10]
References to certain cities and peoples	Some scholars consider the reference to the Philistines, Arameans, and Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis anachronistic.[11] Other scholars have said this could result from transmitters and copyists of the Bible updating the text for their particular audiences.[12][13]
References to animals	Some consider references to camels in Genesis to be anachronistic.[14] In the twenty-first century, others have argued for evidence that camels were present during the era described in the Genesis patriarchal narratives.[15]
Cultural or social practices	Some saw the references to pastoral nomadism in the earliest chapters of Genesis as anachronistic, though recent work has now disputed this.[16]
Technology	The siege weaponry mentioned in 2 Chronicles 26:15 is an anachronism introduced by the editors of the text.[17] The description of the technology and shipping expeditions during King Solomon's reign in 2 Chronicles 8:17-18 are also considered anachronistic.[18]
Terminology	There are examples of anachronistic terms and individuals in the text of 1 Maccabees.[19] "Seron" is described as the head of the Seleucid army, and the term "Mysians" is used incorrectly.[20]

Expand Table

Are there anachronisms in the Book of Mormon?

Yes. Various types of anachronisms have been identified in the Book of Mormon. (See table below.)

Types of Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

Anachronism Category	Examples
Flora	The Book of Mormon mentions the existence of crops in ancient America such as wheat and barley that some argue are anachronistic.[21]
Fauna	Many animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, such as horses and elephants, are considered anachronistic.[22]
Technology	Some of the technology described in the Book of Mormon is believed to have been unknown in ancient America, such as steel.[23]
Culture/Religion	The Book of Mormon describes cultural concepts and practices that some believe to reflect nineteenth-century America, not the ancient world.[24][25] The Book of Mormon is also said to contain theological concepts unknown to pre-exilic Israelites but discussed in the nineteenth century.[26]
Language/Textual	The Book of Mormon contains names and words that some believe are out of place, such as the French word "adieu."[27] The Book of Mormon also contains allusions to or direct quotations from texts that are said to be out of place historically, such as Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55), which is believed to have been written after Lehi left Jerusalem.[28][29]

Expand Table

A color painting illustration from 1978 Book of Mormon Stories, Ammon and King Lamoni speak to King Lamoni's father while standing in a chariot. — In the 1978 Book of Mormon Stories, Ammon and King Lamoni speak with King Lamoni's father, with an artistic interpretation of a chariot in the Americas.

Read More Difficult Questions

1276 Primary Sources

Footnotes

[1]↩︎
The Cambridge Dictionary defines anachronism as follows:
a person, thing, or idea that exists out of its time in history, especially one that happened or existed later than the period being shown, discussed, etc.
The Britannica Dictionary similarly defines "anachronism" as:
Something (such as a word, an object, or an event) that is mistakenly placed in a time where it does not belong in a story, movie, etc.
- Dictionary.com provides a definition of "anachronism."
[2]↩︎
In Act 2, Scene 1 of the play, it contains the following dialogue:
Clock strikes. BRUTUS Peace, count the clock. CASSIUS The clock hath stricken three.
E. Cecil McGavin, Jr., a Book of Mormon researcher, referenced similar anachronisms in Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth, where the play speaks of "shillings." Shillings were not in circulation until the time of Henry the Seventh. McGavin also noted:
In this play Henry the Fifth speaks of going to Constantinople and taking the Turk by the beard. Constantinople was not in the hands of the Turks until 1453, 31 years after Henry the Fifth died.
[3]↩︎
Alexis McCrossen, author of Marking Modern Times: A History of Clocks, Watches, and Other Timekeepers in American Life explains that the mechanical clock was not invented until the twelfth century AD and it was only "after the thirteenth century" that "clocks and bells indicating the hours spread through villages."
- Alexis McCrossen discusses the history of the mechanical clock.
[4]↩︎
For example, biblical scholar Alan Millard explained how "anachronisms [are not] necessarily a sign of composition long after the events described took place" because ancient scribes and copyists were not always consistent or precise in how they transmitted texts. He added that literary and historical readings of ancient texts are both necessary to understand their full context and historicity.
Another scholar, Daniel D. Lowery, wrote that it is "not at all unusual for anachronisms to appear in texts" because of scribal or redactional updating. He stated, "Stories were borrowed, recopied and adapted as necessary, and the texts that have come to us are themselves later representations of much earlier traditions."
- Alan R. Millard discusses the significance of anachronisms in the Abraham biblical narrative.
- Daniel DeWitt Lowery discusses how scribes updated texts and introduced anachronisms.
[5]↩︎
Diego de Landa called the fiber (kapok) of the Ceiba tree "silk" in his work published in 1566.
As John L. Sorenson explained, the Spanish Fathers had a particularly difficult time finding names for New World animals, and so often resorted to anachronistic terms for what they encountered:
It is with the big quadrupeds that some readers think problems exist with scriptural text. As we examine the writings about Mesoamerica's large fauna, we find the linguistic problem assails us at every turn. Natives and Spaniards shared the difficulty. The lowland Maya at first named all the big animals of the Spaniards—horse, mule, ass—with the name of the nearest native creature of equivalent size—the tapir. The Spaniards, however, thought the tapir looked like a pig, although it weighs up to 700 pounds. Others considered the tapir to resemble the ass; sixty years ago in southern Mexico the beast was called anteburro or "once-an-ass." The Maya adopted Spanish names for the large creatures the Europeans had introduced (for example, uacax, cattle, from Spanish vacas). The sheep got a whimsically descriptive name, taman, translated as "cotton that you eat," yet the European goat was called by the name of the aboriginal short-horned deer. Similar confusion and pragmatism prevailed in North America, where the Miami Indians happened to see European cows before the tribe was pushed far enough west to encounter the bison or buffalo, which they then termed 'wild cow.' The explorer DeSoto called the buffalo simply vaca, cow. Yet the Delaware Indians named the cow after the deer, and the Miami tribe labeled sheep, when they first saw them, 'looks-like-a-cow.' Back in Yucatan, Father Landa noted that the tapir, while the size of a mule, had a hoof like an ox, and he considered the small brocket deer a 'kind of little wild goat.'
[6]↩︎
The editors of the NRSVue Bible with the Society of Biblical Literature note how in their translation of the Bible they "took special care not to use terms in ways that are historically or theologically anachronistic," but conceded that "as in every translation, anachronism is unavoidable."
Latter-day Saint researcher Kevin Christensen noted the following concerning "translator's anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon:
Another thing to keep in mind is the problem of assessing the significance of an apparent anachronism in an inspired translation. For example, to argue that the Book of Mormon could not be authentic because it contains English words that did not exist in 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. time period of the main text would be absurd. This is not because the English would not be anachronistic in the ancient setting, but because the Book of Mormon is a translation from one language and culture into another. Joseph Smith's own cultural background is necessarily part of the translation.
- Kevin Christensen addresses the charge that the Book of Mormon contains anachronisms.
- Preface to the NRSVue Bible mentions how anachronisms are "unavoidable" in modern translations.
[7]↩︎
"Bruit" in English means "report; rumor; fame."
- Webster's 1828 Dictionary contains "Bruit," a word of French origin that has the meaning of "Report; rumor; fame."
[8]↩︎
Jeremiah 10:22 in the KJV reads:
Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.
- Jeremiah 10:22 contains "bruit," a word of French origin.
[9]↩︎
Commenting on the date of the composition of the book of Jeremiah, biblical scholar Jack R. Lundbom reported:
The book of Jeremiah contains the legacy (Heb dibrê in 1:1 and 51:64 covers both “words” and “acts”) of Jeremiah the prophet. The earliest record contained is of Jeremiah’s boyhood call to be a prophet in the 13th year of King Josiah, i.e., 627 B.C. Jeremiah is last heard from in Egypt following the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., sometime after 586 B.C.
- Jack R. Lundbom notes that the book of Jeremiah was composed before and just after the destruction of Jerusalem.
[10]↩︎
Brant Gardner, a Latter-day Saint scholar of the Book of Mormon, has noted:
The KJV frequently mentions candles even though oil lamps provided light during both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, the word candle is an anachronism, but only in the translation. With the availability of the Hebrew and Greek source text, it is clear that the original documents refer to the oil lamps rather than candles.
KJV verses that contain "candle" include Job 18:6, 21:17; Psalm 18:28; Proverbs 20:27, 24:20, 31:18; Jeremiah 25:10; Matthew 5:15; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16, 11:33, 15:8; Revelation 18:23, 22:5.
New Testament scholars Lincoln Blumell and Jan J. Martin explain:
In these passages the Greek word is λύχνος (luchnos), which has the literal meaning of “lamp.” Here Jesus is not talking about candles, which would be anachronistic, but about oil lamps.
- Brant A. Gardner provides the KJV translators choosing to use "candle" instead of "oil lamp" as an example of a translation anachronism.
- Lincoln H. Blumell and Jan J. Martin explain a translator anachronism in the KJV Bible.
[11]↩︎
Robert J. Hyndman, in his 2015 "Artefacts and Anachronisms," noted that Abraham "is said to come from “Ur of the Chaldees”, yet the city of Ur was in southern Mesopotamia and the Chaldeans did not occupy the region until about 1000 BC." He added:
At the time of Abraham, their ancestors were most likely living in mountain villages in northern Iraq. Arameans are mentioned frequently in Genesis, but they are not mentioned in any ancient texts as a distinct ethnic group until about 1100 BC. Similarly, Edom is mentioned in Genesis, and there is even a genealogy and “king list” in Genesis 36. Yet archaeological evidence shows the area to have been sparsely populated before the 8th century BC, and it only appears in ancient texts after the Assyrian invasion.
Commenting on the book of Genesis's depiction of Edom as a distinct political entity from Judah, Old Testament archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman wrote:
Edom did not exist as a distinct political entity until a relatively late period. From the Assyrian Sources we know that there were no real kings and no state in Edom before the late eighth century BCE. Edom appears in ancient records as a distinct entity only after the conquest of the region by Assyria. And it became a serious rival to Judah only with the beginning of the lucrative Arabian trade.
- Robert J. Hyndman lists some anachronisms in the Bible, including Ur of the Chaldees and Arameans.
- Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that the references to "Arameans" and Edom as a distinct political entity are both anachronisms in the book of Genesis.
[12]↩︎
Commenting on the use of Philistines in Genesis 21 and 26, Kenneth A. Kitchen in On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003) wrote:
In Gen. 21 the sole usage with Abraham is in the phrase “the land of the Philistines” (w.32, 34), and this would fall into the same category as the phrases "the route of (= to) the land of the Philistines” (= the north Sinai Mediterranean coast road) in Exod. 13:17 and the bounds “from the Sea of Reeds to the Sea of the Philistines” (= Mediterranean) in Exod. 23:31, Likewise in Josh. 13:2,3. Here we see a usage from the twelfth to tenth centuries (1180 and following) that replaced an earlier, obsolete term — just as we would say “the Dutch founded New York” although they did so as New Amsterdam, the present name replacing the former under their British successors. And nobody ceaselessly squawks “anachronism” about this!
- Kenneth A. Kitchen argues that "Philistine" in Genesis 21 and 26 is an example of an anachronism introduced by a later editor updating the text replacing a then-obsolete term.
[13]↩︎
Commenting on Genesis 14:14 ("When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men . . . and went in pursuit as far as Dan"), Michael S. Heiser noted:
If we plotted out the battle between Abram described in this verse on a map, with place names appropriate for Abram’s day, we’d see that the writer really meant that the enemy was pursued all the way to a place called Laish, not Dan. Many Bible critics would call this an error, but it isn’t. Much later, in the days of Israel’s judges, Laish was renamed as Dan: “And they named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first” (Judg 18:29). Evidently, an unnamed editor updated the text of Genesis 14:14 after the name change took place. The editor likely did this to make sure readers of his own day would understand the geography.
- Michael S. Heiser argues that some of the "anachronisms" in the Bible are examples of later editors updating the text for their audience.
[14]↩︎
William Foxwell Albright, in his 1954 book, The Archaeology of Palestine, noted:
In the eighteenth century B.C. the ass was the chief beast of burden. In the Cappadocian and the Mari tablets we hear of caravans of asses, but never of caravans of camels; the oldest published reference to the camel dates from the eleventh century B.C. Moreover, the great mass of archaeological evidence now available yields only two or three doubtful representations of the camel during the entire period from the beginning of the third to the end of the second millennium B.C.
In his 1975 book, The Camel and the Wheel, Richard W. Bulliet, after surveying evidence for the domestication of the camel in the Middle East, concluded:
There are no sound grounds for doubting Albright’s contention that camel domestication first became a factor of importance in the Syrian and north Arabian deserts around the eleventh century B.C. . . .
Robert J. Hyndman, a former Christadelphian, wrote in an article:
Abraham is portrayed as having camels, yet camels were not domesticated until a thousand years later. He is said to come from “Ur of the Chaldees”, yet the city of Ur was in southern Mesopotamia and the Chaldeans did not occupy the region until about 1000 BC. At the time of Abraham, their ancestors were most likely living in mountain villages in northern Iraq.
[15]↩︎
In 2021, Eisenbrauns published a volume by Martin Heide and Joris Peters entitled Camels in the Biblical World. The authors argue that some instances of "camel" in the Bible can be explained by textual changes to "update" the biblical narratives, but that in most instances, camels have been attested in light of "archaeological camel remains, iconography, inscriptions, and other text sources."
- Martin Heide and Joris Peters discuss camels in the Bible and the Ancient Near East; provides evidence that not all instances of "camel" in the Bible are anachronistic; some could be explained by textual changes to 'update' the biblical narratives.
- Juris Zarins discusses camels in the Bible; argues that, while there is evidence for domesticated camels in the Levant by the latter part of the 2nd millennium BC, some issues remain as yet unresolved.
[16]↩︎
G. A. Klingbeil wrote:
D. J. Wiseman (1978) has conveniently summarized the evidence for the existence of tents during the patriarchal period. He suggests that the nomadism of the patriarchs is hardly the same as the “enclosed nomadism” as found in the Mari documents of the Middle Bronze Age. Since the references to tents are mostly connected with the act of building an altar and after the initial move from Ur to Haran to Palestine are only mentioned when Abraham was forced to move from the Bethel area, it is possible to argue that they represent seasonal movements of a specific group, something similar to the phenomenon visible in modern-day bedouins living in the twenty-first century. Sufficient extrabiblical evidence from Mesopotamia and Egypt has been marshaled by D. J. Wiseman (197–98) to dismiss this critique raised by traditional historical criticism.
- G. A. Klingbeil discusses, and offers possible resolutions to purported anachronisms in Genesis and other biblical texts such as camels, tents, and nomadism.
[17]↩︎
Commenting on siege weapons in the Ancient Near East, Israel Eph'al noted:
2 Chron. 26:15 states that King Uzziah of Judah made in Jerusalem “clever devices” (חשבנות מחשבת חושב; lit., “contrivances, the invention of inventive men”), to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and great stones.” The Septuagint translates חשבנות מחשבת חושב by the term μεχαναι, indicating that this Hebrew hapax legomenon was understood as an artillery device. Yadin rejected the opinion that the term חשבנות references to a device shooting arrows and stones, and argued that artillery was invented no earlier than the 4th century BCE and therefore the attribution of sophisticated weapons that hurl large stones to the period of Uzziah (the 8th century BC) is clear anachronistic.
Eph'al added:
The semantic similarity between the terms μεχαναι and חשבנות מחשבת חושב, suggests that the Chronicler invented this term to refer, anachronistically, to the artillery devices that were common in his own day (ca. 400 BC), and therefore (clumsily) translated a parallel term that was absent in Hebrew.
- Israel Eph’al discusses siege and military engines ("machinery") in the Ancient Near East; argues that 2 Chronicles 26:15 contains an anachronism.
[18]↩︎
Biblical scholar Isaac Kalimi wrote:
According to 1 Kgs 9:26-28, Solomon built ships at Ezion-geber, near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea, and Hirma, king of Tyre, sent “his servants, sailors who were familiar with the sea” to Solomon. Hiram’s servants sailed to Ophir with Solomon’s servants to import gold. In 2 Chr 8:17-18 the Chronicler apparently wanted to show that Solomon initiated this expedition. He wrote that Solomon went “to Ezion-geber and to Elath on the seacoast” (instead of “Ezion-geber, near Elath” in Kings!”); and Hiram sent him not only Tyrian sailors but also ships: “Hiram sent him, with his servants, ships and servants familiar with the sea. They went to Ophir with Solomon’s servants and imported gold . . . from there.”
Commenting on how this is an example of anachronisms and historical errors being introduced into the text by the Chronicler's editing of their sources, Kalami noted:
The Chronicler’s citation is a paraphrase of the earlier text that ignored the vast geographical and technological problems prohibiting the dispatch of ships from Tyre on the Phoenician coast to Ezion-geber on the Red Sea—either by land or by sea. It is unreasonable to assume that Hiram’s ships sailed from Tyre around the African continent to reach Ezion-geber. Neither is there any evidence of a canal linking the Nile and the Red Sea during the Solomonic era. However, these possibilities existed in the Chronicler’s day, as we read in Herodotus 2.158 and 4.42 and on steles set up by Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.) along the route of the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea. On one of the steles, Darius said, “I ordered this canal to be dug up to link the river flowing throughout Egypt with the sea coming from Persia . . . and ships sail from Egypt along this canal to Persia.” But the sources available to us do not indicate that this canal existed during the period of the United Monarchy.
- Isaac Kalimi discusses instances of historical errors and anachronisms in the books of 1-2 Chronicles as well as 1 Maccabees.
[19]↩︎
Catholic biblical scholar Scott W. Hahn noted:
In all probability, 1 Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew. Testimony to this effect comes from Saint Jerome, who wrote that he saw the book in Hebrew. Internal evidence also suggests that the books were translated into Greek from a Semitic original. The author is unknown, although the language indicates that the work was composed in Palestine by a writer who was familiar with Palestinian geography and who was deliberately trying to imitate the historical style of an earlier period (e.g., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings). The date of its composition is uncertain, but it was probably written after 134 B.C., following the death of Simon and during the period of John Hyrcanus (134–104 B.C.).
- The Catholic Bible Dictionary discusses the date and authorship of First and Second Maccabees.
[20]↩︎
Biblical scholar Isaac Kalami noted:
In 1 Macc 1:29 we are told: “two years later the king sent a minister of taxation (αρχουνα φρονολογιας) to the cities of Judah.” This is apparently a reference to Appollonius, who was called “captain of the Mysians” in 2 Macc 5:24 because he was in command of the mercenary force from the land of Mysia (Μυσια), in northwest Asia Minor. The Greek translator of 1 Maccabees was apparently unfamiliar with this geographical term and with the military title derived from it, so he paraphrased it, explain: מוסים ‘Mysians’ = מסים ‘taxes’.
Kalami also noted another error in 1 Maccabees:
In 1 Macc 3:13, Seron is termed “commander of the army of Syria” (αρχων τηνς δυναμεως Συριας). However, it is clear from v. 14 that Seron was not the head of the Seleucid army.
- Isaac Kalimi discusses instances of historical errors and anachronisms in the books of 1-2 Chronicles as well as 1 Maccabees.
[21]↩︎
This criticism was first noted by Martin Thomas Lamb in his 1887 book The Golden Bible; or, the Book of Mormon: Is it from God? where he argued that "barley" was unknown to the New World:
There is a still more serious objection to one of the above assertions. It is the somewhat stubborn fact that barley was never found upon either of these western continents until imported by the Europeans in modern times!
- Martin Thomas Lamb claims that barley and coins were unknown in the Americas during Book of Mormon times.
[22]↩︎
This criticism was first noted in 1838 by H. Stevenson, who argued that the New World animals in the Book of Mormon proved the text to be "complete fiction":
Although there is no ancient record to contradict or confirm the book in question, yet, when what is known of America since its discovery, is compared with the history of Mormon, it makes it appear just what it is, a complete fiction. The Book of Mormon, page the 53rd, says, “We did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts of every kind, both the cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse, and the goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals.” This cannot be true, because there were neither oxen, nor asses, nor goats, on all the continent of America, when it was first discovered, a few hundred years ago.
- H. Stevenson, writing in 1839, argues that the animals mentioned in the New World in Book of Mormon shows the text to be "a complete fiction."
[23]↩︎
The earliest charge of metals and metallurgy in the Book of Mormon being an anachronism in the text is from E. D. Howe's 1834 book, Mormonism Unvailed. Commenting on on Laban's "steel" sword Howe wrote:
This is the earliest account of steel to be found in history. Alexander the Great, who lived about three hundred years after the period here spoken of, employed iron for points to his instruments of war, as Josephus tells us; and the same author says, that he complained that his weapons were so easily blunted ; now, if steel had been in use, either at Rome, Jerusalem, or Damascus, at the time here spoken of, in Alexander’s time it would have been common, and he would have used it for his weapons instead of iron. Damascus was once famous for manufacturing swords, but it was long after the Christian era. A coarse kind of steel, or iron carbonated, was used in the days of Julius Caesar, about one hundred years before Christ.
And Deanne G. Matheny, in an essay critiquing John L. Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985) stated:
Scholars generally agree that metallurgy was probably introduced in Mesoamerica near the beginning of the Postclassic period (about C.E. 900). Metallurgical technology was probably diffused to Mesoamerica from South America, where it had been invented 2,500 years earlier. Thus Sorenson's date of 3000 B.C.E. for the Jaredite arrival produces difficulty in accounting for their work at this early date in either the specific area chosen by Sorensen or in Mesoamerica in generally.
- Deanne G. Matheny argues that the reference to various plants, animals, metals, and tents in the Book of Mormon are anachronisms.
- E. D. Howe argues that the reference to Laban's steel sword is an anachronism.
[24]↩︎
For example, the idea of "anti-Masonry" in the Book of Mormon was first raised by Alexander Campbell in 1831. Commenting on the formation of the Gadianton Robbers before the birth of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, Campbell commented:
Masonry was invented about this time; for men began to bind themselves in secret oaths to aid one another in all things, good or evil.
And Jerald and Sandra Tanner argued that the "secret combinations" in the Book of Mormon reflected nineteenth-century Anti-Masonic sentiment:
The Masons were accused of being of dangerous to our government,” and some people felt that unless they were “suppressed, there will soon be neither religion, morals, literature, nor civilized society left!” (Wayne Sentinel, September 26, 1828). The Book of Mormon paints a similar picture concerning secret societies: And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings. (3 Nephi 6:30) In Ether 8:22 we read that “whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, . . . shall be destroyed.” In verse 25 of the same chapter we read that “whosoever buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries, . . .”
- The Tanners argue that the Book of Mormon reflects 19th-century Anti-Masonic rhetoric and sentiment.
- Alexander Campell, in Delusions (1831) argues that the Book of Mormon contains a series of anachronisms, such as 19th-century theological discussions (e.g., infant baptism).
[25]↩︎
Another example is the theme of U.S. democracy. This, as well as anti-Masonry, was raised by Alexander Campbell, who in his 1831 book Delusions said the book addresses "the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man."
And Thomas O' Dea wrote in his 1957 book The Mormons:
American sentiments permeate the work. In it are found the democratic, the republican, the antimonarchical, and the egalitarian doctrines that pervaded the climate of opinion in which it was conceived and that enter into the expressions and concerns of its Nephite kings, prophets, and priests as naturally as they later come form the mouths of Mormon leaders preaching to the people in Utah. Monarchy is never really good, and its best and good kings work with their hands Taxation is oppressive, and lawyers are not to be trusted.
- Thomas F. O’Dea argues that the Book of Mormon reflects the politics and government structures of 19th-century America.
- Alexander Campell, in Delusions (1831) argues that the Book of Mormon contains a series of anachronisms, such as 19th-century theological discussions (e.g., infant baptism).
[26]↩︎
In his critical review of the Book of Mormon, "Delusions," published in the February 7, 1831 issue of the Millennial Harbinger, Alexander Campbell wrote:
This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to.
- Alexander Campell, in Delusions (1831) argues that the Book of Mormon contains a series of anachronisms, such as 19th-century theological discussions (e.g., infant baptism).
[27]↩︎
Marian Bodine, in a listing of criticisms of the Book of Mormon, raises "adieu" as being problematic to the text's antiquity. She wrote, "Jacob 7:27, “Adieu,” French in 544 B.C.?"
"Adieu" as an anachronism was first raised against the Book of Mormon in 1912. When comparing the Book of Mormon to the Spalding Manuscript, Theodore Clarke Smith, in his The External Evidences of the Book of Mormon, wrote:
(4 ) In both books the word "adieu,' is used. Twice in the Ms. and in the B. M. Jacob ends his book with, "Brethren, adieu ." A French word appearing many hundreds of years before the French language was spoken.
- Marian Bodine provides a listing of various purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "adieu" and the name "Sam."
- Theodore Clarke Smith, when comparing the Book of Mormon and the Spalding Manuscript, argues that the use of "adieu" in both volumes are anachronistic.
[28]↩︎
One of the earliest published discussions of the difficulty of the multiple authorship of Isaiah theory was by B. H. Roberts in the July 1909 issue of The Improvement Era in an article entitled "An Objection to the Book of Mormon Answered":
The difficulty presented by the higher criticism is obvious; viz., if Joseph Smith is representing the first Nephi as transcribing into his Nephite records passages and whole chapters purporting to have been written by Isaiah, when as a matter of fact those chapters were not written until a hundred and twenty-five or a hundred and fifty years after Isaiah's death; and not until fifty years after Lehi's colony had departed from Jerusalem; then Joseph Smith is representing Nephi as doing that which is impossible, and throws the whole Book of Mormon under suspicion of being fraudulent.
- B. H. Roberts addresses the theory of multiple authorship of Isaiah in 1909: argues that the evidence from the New Testament and Book of Mormon supports the unity of Isaiah.
[29]↩︎
See Deutero Isaiah.
[30]↩︎
Lucas Annear and Kristin Speth define semantic transfer as "the transfer of semantic structure (that is, meaning) from one language to another. . . . Loan-shifting . . . applies a new meaning to a native word that has the same phonological shape as word in the model language."
Alex Mullen writes that "loan-shifting is the process through which a word undergoes semantic extension on the model of a foreign counterpart."
Hans Henrich Hock and Brian D. Joseph similarly explain how "loan shifts simply redefine the meanings of existing lexical items."
[31]↩︎
Latter-day Saint writers as early as the 1920s have suggested the possibility for loan shifting of certain animal names in the Book of Mormon.
- Janne M. Sjodahl in 1927 proposes that Nephi applied Old World names for New World animals (loan shifting) he encountered.
- John L. Sorenson provides evidence of loan-shifting in Mesoamerica.
[32]↩︎
Orly Goldwasser, for instance, explains how the Egyptian word ḥtr was originally used to describe a bovid quadruped pulling a plow but was later used to describe a horse pulling a chariot when the latter was introduced into Egypt around 1600 BC. He wrote:
The moment the horse was embedded into the lexeme ḥtr, the word became polysemic, with two very different meanings: ‘a team of draught animals (with a plough)’ and ‘a team of horses (with a chariot)’. The difference is manifested not only in the daily use, but also in the social context — mundane versus prestige.
- Orly Goldwasser discusses various semantic loan shifting for "horse" in Near Eastern and Mesoamerican cultures.
[33]↩︎
Michael C. Coe has translated the Maya word tzimin as both "horse" and "tapir." Commenting on "numerical classifiers" among the Maya, Coe noted that:
We have a glimmering of this sort of construction when we talk of “two flocks of geese” or “a pride of lions,” but this is pale stuff compared to the richness of Mayan classifiers. Colonial Yucatec dictionaries list dozens of these, but only a handful are still in use in today’s Yucatán, yet even these have to be interpreted even when the number itself might be in Spanish. If I see three horses in a pasture, I would count them as ox-tul tzimin (ox, three; -tul, classifier for animate things; tzimin, “horse” or “tapir”). However, if there were three stones lying in the same pasture, I would have to say ox-p’el tunich (ox, three; -p’el, classifier for inanimate things; tunich, “stone”).
- Michael D. Coe translates the Mayan word tzimin as both "horse" and "tapir."
[34]↩︎
Paul Bahn defines archaeology as "the study of the human past through the material traces of it that have survived."
A "basic problem," however, that faces archaeologists is that "very little evidence survives of most of the things that ever happened in the past, and of this evidence only the tiniest fraction is ever recovered by archaeologists, and probably only a minute portion of what is recovered is correctly interpreted or identified."
The actual recovery of artifacts—the physical attestation of something—is an important but not the only component of reconstructing the past.
- Paul Bahn provides a definition of archaeology.
[35]↩︎
In a letter dated August 22, 1921, W. E. Riter gave the following criticism of the Book of Mormon:
Reference is frequently made in the Book of Mormon to "swords and cimiters." The use of the word scimeter does not occur in other literature before the rise of the Mohammedan power and apparently that peculiar weapon was not developed until long after the Christian era. It does not, therefore appear likely that the Nephites or Lamanites possessed either the weapon or the term.
- W. E. Riter encloses questions from Mr. Couch for B. H. Roberts about BOM issues.
[36]↩︎
For example, the term the King James Version of the Bible translates in 1 Samuel 17:45 as "shield." Abernathy and Krijgsman note that the Hebrew term (כידון, kydwn) means a curved sword or scimitar, not a shield.
Non-Latter-day Saint scholars like M. J. Fretz, Beau Abernathy, Robert Drews, and Marten Krijgsman have also published on "scimitars" or "sickle swords" in pre-exilic Israel or Egypt.
[37]↩︎
Bradley Hudson McLean defined epigraphy as "the study of writings inscribed on durable materials."
He added:
The vast majority of these are engraved on stone. Other materials also inscribed include bronze, potsherds (ostraca), walls (graffiti), and portable objects, such as vases, amphorae, tiles, tesserae, gems, weights, and measures. The field of epigraphy also includes texts painted on newly made pottery prior to firing, as well as pottery and bricks impressed with stamps.
- Bradley Hudson McLean defines the field of epigraphy.
[38]↩︎
Epigraphic evidence is often used to create an onomasticon—a list or collection of names—for ancient cultures and countries. As more inscriptions are discovered, more names become attested, and the onomasticon increases in size. Onomastica were sometimes produced by ancient scribes who listed names of people, geographical features, or animals, or are sometimes compiled by modern scholars based on varying types of epigraphic and other textual material.
[39]↩︎
Marian Bodine argued:
I Nephi 2:5, Sam is a Yankee name, Samuel would have been a Jewish name. . . . Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry. Alma in Hebrew means a betrothed virgin. Hardly a fitting name for a man.
- Marian Bodine provides a listing of various purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "adieu" and the name "Sam."
[40]↩︎
John A. Tvedtnes et al. noted:
The name Sam is attested on a bronze ringmounted seal dated to the seventh century b.c. While others have read this name as Shem, in paleo Hebrew there is no distinction in writing between ś and š (the latter written sh in English). (It is the same letter used at the beginning of the name Sariah.) Various dialects of Hebrew pronounced this letter in different ways anciently. From the story in Judges 12:6, we find that some of the tribe of Joseph pronounced it s instead of š, reminding us that Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (see 1 Nephi 5:14).
- John A. Tvedtnes et al. discuss the evidence of "Josh" and "Sam" being authentic names.
[41]↩︎
Alma appears as a personal name at Ebla at least 8 times, including the following:
1) Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi VII 16 (TM.75.G.1368) r. V—5 tar bar6:kù / AL6-ma—“Alma received thirty shekels of silver.” 2) Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi VII 16 (TM.75.G. 1368) r. VIII 3—10 gín DILMUN bar6:kù / AL6-ma—“Alma received 10 ‘Dilmun’ shekels of silver.” 3) Studi Eblaiti IV p. 155 (TM.75.G.1559) r. I 6—10 gín DILMUN bar6:kù / al-ma—“Alma received 10 Dilmun shekels of silver.”
- Joachim Krecher comments on the appearance of al6 in the Eblaite language and texts.
- Terrence L. Szink discusses the attestation of "Alma" as a male personal name at Ebla before the time of Lehi et al.
[42]↩︎
A letter from Bar Kokhba reads אלמא בן יהודה, Aramaic for "Alma son of Yehudah/Judah." In his scholarly lexicon of the Classical Hebrew, David J. A. Clines has an entry under אלמא which reads:
pr.n.m. Alma, son of Judah and party to lease transaction 5/6 ḤevBA 444 fr. 1 fr. 2
- Yigael Yadin reproduces document from Bar Kohkba that reads "Alma son of Judah/Yehudah" in Aramaic.
- David J. A. Clines notes that Alma (אלמא) is attested as a name for a Semitic male from the Bar Kokhba documents.
[43]↩︎
A lexicon is the vocabulary or words that make up a particular language.
- Cambridge Dictionary definition of "lexicon."
[44]↩︎
Søren Wichmann, in his 1995 book, The Relationship among the Mixe-Zoquean Languages of Mexico, had an entry for a word in Mixe-Zoquaean for "metal":
fierro, metal pZ *ti?|]-kuy (n)
Ti#059
Robert E. Longacre reported on a word in Proto-Mixtecan for "money" and "copper-colored":
23. (*32 M *31) M-SM, SE, J, M, šu’ú money, bit (12 ½ centavos), M-SM, SE M šú’ú bright, shining; T za3 ‘aha 4-5 money, zaha3 bit, zi3-mi-2-1 (ču3h) yoke (of an egg); mi1-2 copper-colored, yellow. Pite syll: M T *θi
Robert E. Longacre and René Millon noted that Proto-Mixtecan also had a word that meant both "bell" and "metal":
For example, one set, linguistically evaluated as solid, reconstructs in Proto-Mixtecan with the meaning bell or perhaps metal. The existence of metal or metal bells at this early date is highly improbable on the basis of archaeological evidence. Examination of the set suggests that the original meaning may have been rattle but it is impossible to be certain on this.
- Søren Wichmann shows that the Mixe-Zoquaean language had a word for "metal."
- Robert E. Longacre reports on a word in Proto-Mixtecan (spoken in Central Mexico c. 1000 BC) for "money" which also meant "bright, shining" and is related to "copper-colored."
[45]↩︎
Brant Gardner, a Latter-day Saint scholar, noted:
The Book of Mormon clearly requires metal-working as an undeniably physical presence because the royal records are kept on metal plates. The plates delivered to Joseph Smith attest to Nephite abilities with metal. To date, archaeological confirmation of these abilities at the time mentioned in the Book of Mormon does not exist.
Gardner also noted:
Linguistic data provide hope that archaeology might yet make a discovery that would alter our understanding of metallurgy dating in Mesoamerica. A word for metal has been reconstructed in the Mixe-Zoquean vocabulary (*ting-kuy). This is the language group that would have been spoke during Jaredite times. It is therefore certain that there was metal, else there would be no reason to have the word. However, it would have referred to the iron ore and not to smelted metal. Confirmation of early metal-working is still absent.
- Brant A. Gardner discusses metals and metal working in Pre-Classical Mesoamerica; notes that there is no archaeological evidence but there is linguistic evidence for knowledge of metal during this period.
[46]↩︎
In the preface to the NRSVue edition of the Bible, the translators of the text note:
Deciphering the meanings of the Bible’s ancient languages involves a host of efforts: the study of the languages themselves, the comparative study of cognate languages from the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, the disciplines of philology and linguistics, and the historical study of the social, cultural, and economic contexts in which the Bible was written. The NRSVue took special care not to use terms in ways that are historically or theologically anachronistic, though, as in every translation, anachronism is unavoidable.
- Preface to the NRSVue Bible mentions how anachronisms are "unavoidable" in modern translations.
[47]↩︎
In a list of criticisms of the Book of Mormon, Marian Bodine wrote:
32. Jacob 7:27, “Adieu,” French in 544 B.C.?
- Marian Bodine provides a listing of various purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "adieu" and the name "Sam."
[48]↩︎
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defined adieu as: "Farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends"; and "A farewell, or commendation to the care of God; as an everlasting adieu."
- Webster's 1828 Dictionary has an entry for "Adieu"; defines it as "farewell" or "commendation to the care of God."
[49]↩︎
This includes Henry Weber, Tales of the East (1812) and the Novum Testamentum Graecum et Lexicon (1850).
- Henry Weber edition of Arabian Nights published in 1812 contains multiple uses of adieu.
- Gulielmi Greenfield glosses Αποτασσομαι as "bid adieu".
[50]↩︎
Richard Packham, a former Latter-day Saint, wrote the following when discussing linguistic arguments against the Book of Mormon that he believes to be "not valid or quite weak":
"adieu" (Jacob 7:27) The fact that a French word is used in an English translation does not mean that the original text had that same French word. "Adieu" is used in English in a special sense, a final farewell to one whom one does not expect to see ever again. If there were a word with such a specific meaning in an original text, it would be quite appropriate to translate it into English with the French word, since English has no word which is an exact equivalent.
- Richard Packham lists some linguistic issues sometimes raised against the Book of Mormon that are not genuine criticisms of the text.
[51]↩︎
Deborah H. Roberts observed how "translations themselves are, of course, of necessity later than the work they translate. . . . [T]ranslators in their belatedness may read and therefore write a work as referring to still other texts, some of them not yet written at the time of the source text."
Roberts noted how it "seems more natural to find such quotations in works that otherwise play freely with anachronism—such as many twentieth-century translations of [ancient Greek] comedy—or that declare themselves to be something other than translation."
She concluded:
The effects of such intertextuality are varied. In translations that freely engage in anachronism—such as many versions of comedy in the past few decades—the quotations, like other modes of anachronism, seem to serve primarily though not exclusively to bring the work into the translator’s own time, to make its preoccupations and its sense of humour accessible to contemporaries by not only speaking their language but also citing what they have read. . . . We may, however, see archaism in translation as akin to, or as almost another species of, anachronistic quotation. Both, after all, entail a further element of intertextuality beyond the translation’s relationship to its original. The literariness of archaizing language is inescapable: if you are to translate a text into an earlier version of your own language, you can only have acquired that earlier version from other texts.
- Deborah H. Roberts discusses the presence of translator's anachronisms in modern translations of Classical sources.
[52]↩︎
The Targums are translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic which sometimes expand on the underlying Hebrew text to include concepts and language fitting the time and cultural setting of the translation. As Old Testament scholar Ernst Würthwein wrote:
What are the peculiar characteristics of the Aramaic Targums? They are not literal translations in the strict sense. Rather they are more deliberately oriented to an audience, attempting to present the biblical text as relevant and edifying. They could be said to tend toward sermonizing. Compared with translations, the Targums markedly stress the intent of biblical texts by paraphrasing, expanding with illustrations, modifying expressions about God that could be misunderstood, correcting passages that present difficulties, adapting the biblical text to contemporary religious perspectives, and so on. Thus they had a tremendous freedom in their handling of the text, ranging from relatively literal renderings to free haggadic or halakic expansions approaching midrash. They frequently exhibit an amazing degree of literary creativity over time in "transposing" the biblical text to a new age.
- Ernst Würthwein defines the concept of Targum.
[53]↩︎
This was proposed by Latter-day Saint philosopher Blake Ostler in his 1987 article "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source." He argued that the Book of Mormon, at times, reflects Joseph Smith's "expansion of an ancient work by building on the work of earlier prophets to answer the nagging problems of his day."
He added, "In so doing, he provided unrestricted and authoritative commentary, interpretation, explanation, and clarifications based on insights from the Book of Mormon text and the King James Bible (KJV)."
Ostler argued that the theology of the atonement, heaven, hell, resurrection, and Satan and Demons in the Book of Mormon are examples of these "modern expansions."
At this time, Ostler also argued that the theology in Alma 42 was influenced by Anselm of Canterbury. However, in a book published in 2006, Ostler reversed this point, noting that he "badly misinterpreted these passages in Alma when I compared them to Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement."
- Blake T. Ostler argues that the Book of Mormon, while an ancient text, has modern expansions made by Joseph on a revelatory level; this explains many of the purported anachronisms in the book.
- Blake T. Ostler retracts his claims from his 1987 Dialogue article that Alma 34 and 42 reflects the atonement theology of Anselm.
[54]↩︎
Flora refers to plants and vegetation, while fauna refers to animals and other wildlife.
[55]↩︎
Mosiah 9:9 speaks of "corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits," while 3 Nephi 18:18 has Jesus warn that "Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat."
[56]↩︎
Martin T. Lamb wrote in 1887 that "neither barley or wheat were found in this western world until introduced by Europeans in modern times."
[57]↩︎
Carl Hugh Jones proposed in 1964 that the Lehites introduced wheat but that it was a secondary, limited crop for the Nephites compared to corn or maize.
John L. Sorenson and others have proposed that "wheat" could be referring to some other indigenous pre-Columbian grain. Sorenson notes that there are "plenty of other cultivated grains in ancient Mesoamerica [that] might have been called sheum, or 'wheat,' or 'barley.'"
[58]↩︎
Mosiah 7:22 mentions "our corn, and our barley, and even all our grain of every kind," while Alma 11:7 speaks of "a measure of barley" being a measuring unit in the Nephite monetary system.
[59]↩︎
Critics of the Book of Mormon commonly cite wheat and barley together as two anachronistic grains mentioned in the text.
[60]↩︎
Three different species of native pre-Columbian barley have been identified in North America, but none as of yet in Mesoamerica.
- Evidence Central discusses the evidence for barley in Pre-Columbian America.
- Raymond C. Treat (RLDS) discusses the discovery of barley in the New World.
[61]↩︎
Alma 1:29 says the Nephites had an "abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth." Alma 4:6 speaks of "fine silks, and their fine-twined linen."
[62]↩︎
Silk has been commonly cited as an anachronism in the Book of Mormon since the early twentieth century.
[63]↩︎
John L. Sorenson, for instance, has argued that Nephite "silk" could have derived from the cocoons of wild moths or seed pods of the ceiba tree.
[64]↩︎
Various native pre-Columbian plant fibers that were spun by indigenous American groups have been called "silk" by both historical and contemporary sources.
[65]↩︎
Mosiah 10:5 mentions "all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind." Helaman 6:13 also mentions "fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind." Ether 9:17 and 10:24 say the Jaredites also had "silks" and "fine linen."
[66]↩︎
Linen as historically encountered and used in Europe and North America is made from the fibers of the flax plant Linum usitatissimum, which was, according to current evidence, unknown in pre-Columbian America. The "fine-twined linen" mentioned in the Book of Mormon is seen as anachronistic.
[67]↩︎
For example, Sorenson and others cite "the fiber of the maguey plant, from which henequen was manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen."
[68]↩︎
For example, Blue Flax (Linum lewisii) was used by pre-Columbian Native Americans for "weaving and making fishing line."
- Carolyn Dodson and William W. Dunmire write about blue flax being native to America and used in weaving.
[69]↩︎
Wine is mentioned as a drink in the New World in these verses. Mosiah 11:15 says King Noah built "wine-presses, and made wine in abundance." Mosiah 22:7 mentions a "tribute of wine to the Lamanites." In 3 Nephi 18:1–3 Jesus uses "bread and wine" to institute the sacrament. Ether 15:22 says some Jaredite warriors became "drunken with wine."
[70]↩︎
Eric Kettunen and Deanne Matheny have both cited the Book of Mormon's mention of "vineyards" and "wine-presses" as problematic for a claimed Mesoamerican setting for the text.
- Deanne G. Matheny argues that the reference to various plants, animals, metals, and tents in the Book of Mormon are anachronisms.
- Eric Kettunen lists a series of purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g., animals; plants; metals/metallurgy).
[71]↩︎
The fruit of the maguey plant (agave and yucca) is one candidate cited as the basis for the "wine" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. John L. Sorenson wrote:
When the Spaniards arrived in Mesoamerica, they spoke about several kinds of native "wines." An intoxicating drink was commonly manufactured by fermenting a mixture of water, a certain tree bark, and honey. Other groups fermented juices drawn from the agave plant, bananas, pineapples, or the heart of certain palm trees. To all of these, the Europeans applied the term *wine*. Further, the Spaniards spoke of native plantings of the agave cactus (from which the drink balche was made) as "vineyards."
[72]↩︎
For example, in the research article The genetic diversity of wild grapes in Mexico authors Huerta-Acosta stated:
Wild grapevines have had a unique cultural significance for the indigenous groups of Mexico for thousands of years. The Aztecs named the grapevine berry ‘‘acacholli’’ and likely maintained wild vines as an important source of food and medicine (Franco- Mora and Cruz-Castillo 2012). Fruit from the wild grapevines was harvested to make juice, raisins and jelly.
In Mexico, genetic testing confirms the widespread speciation and distribution of native grapes throughout the country.
- Jarla G. Huerta-Acosta et al. discusses the genetic diversity of grapes native to Mexico; notes also that endemic wild grape species were used to produce semisweet wine.
- Article on "Native Grapes" on the Maryland Native Plant Society Website notes that there are over 60 species of grapes (Vitis) native to the Northern Hemisphere.
[73]↩︎
1 Nephi 18:25 mentions "the horse" as one of the animals found by the Nephites in the New World. Enos 1:21 says the Nephites raised "many horses" as flocks while Alma 18:9 says Ammon watched over Lamoni's "horses and chariots."
[74]↩︎
Critics of Book of Mormon historicity have cited horses as an anachronism in the text since the 1830s.
[75]↩︎
John L. Sorenson has championed the idea that the Nephites gave familiar labels such as "horse" to new, unknown animals they encountered in the New World (such as the tapir).
[76]↩︎
The loan shift of "horse" > "tapir" is attested among the Maya. Likewise, North American Indian tribes used the word "dog" to render "horse":
In Pawnee, Shield Chief Gover points out, the word for “horse” translates as “new dog.” Other Indigenous languages, too, reflect an initial unfamiliarity with the beasts: Blackfeet called them “elk dogs,” Comanche “magic dogs,” the Assiniboine “great dogs.” “Even in language, it shows up as ‘what is this?!’” Shield Chief Gover laughs. “Our oral traditions do not say we’ve always had horses. This is another piece of evidence that shows oral traditions were always correct, and archaeology’s catching up.
[77]↩︎
Brant Gardner has argued that "anachronistic vocabulary such as 'horse' [in the Book of Mormon] is the result of the modern translator’s imposition of his language culture than that such words represent a literalistic translation of a Nephite cross-label."
- Brant A. Gardner writes that Joseph translated plants and animals he didn't know with words he knew.
- Brant A. Gardner discusses anachronisms of translation and historical anachronisms; argues that "horses" and "chariots" are examples of the former.
[78]↩︎
Paleontologist Wade E. Miller has argued for the presence of at least three species of horse that survived in Mexico up to roughly 3000–900 years ago, putting them potentially within the timeline of the Book of Mormon.
- Wade E. Miller et al. publishes evidence for horses in the Americas during the Post-Pleistocene/Pre-Columbian era.
- Wade E. Miller reports that species of horses such as Equus conversidens were found at Luis Putosi, Mexiclo, ca. 1300-1240 BC.
[79]↩︎
The only mention of elephants in the Book of Mormon is at Ether 9:19, which says "there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms."
[80]↩︎
As one critic of the Book of Mormon's historicity put it, "elephants were extinct in America before the Jaredites could have gotten here."
[81]↩︎
Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper, writing in 2017, summarize evidence that suggests mammoths went extinct much later than previously believed:
Along with a number of large mammals, mammoths were thought to have become extinct about ten thousand years ago. It is now known that the mammoth survived for a few thousand years longer. Mead and Meltzer provided an age of 4,885 years before the present for one dated mammoth specimen. . . These dates are recent enough to place the elephant in the time of the Jaredites. A date for a mammoth in northern North America was cited at 3,700 years before the present. An Alaskan mammoth was dated at 5,720 years ago. As more mammoth (elephant) finds are made, even younger dates will no doubt arise. Generally, when animal species’ populations decrease, they survive longer in southern refugia. Small populations of mammoths could have survived in Mesoamerica well past the close of the Pleistocene. The fact that known dates of mammoths in Mesoamerica are numerous up to the end of this epoch lends support to this view.
In 2021, Nature Communications published a study showing pockets of mammoths survived in the Yukon as late as circa 3500–2000 BC.
- Tyler J. Murchie et al. publish evidence for mammoths surviving in the Yukon to ca. 4000–5500 YBP.
- Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper address the animals in the Book of Mormon; argues that many of them have been attested in discoveries, and some maybe explained in light of "loan shifting."
[82]↩︎
Ether 9:18 says the Jaredites had "swine" that were "useful for the food of man."
[83]↩︎
"Swine" are often grouped together with other alleged anachronistic animals in the Book of Mormon.
[84]↩︎
John L. Sorenson and Michael R. Ash have both cited the peccary as an animal that could feasibly be the "swine" mentioned in Ether 9.
Ash wrote:
Despite the charges of some critics, the early Americans did have native pigs. The Aztecs called them pisote, which basically means “glutton” and was often applied to the peccary or wild pig. It should also be noted that some critics have ridiculed the Book of Mormon for its mention of swine as “useful food” (see Ether 9:18). While the critics claim that this would have violated Mosaic Law, they fail to recognize that statement in Ether would have been made prior to the Law of Moses.
- Michael R. Ash discusses animals such as elephants in the Book of Mormon; argues that there is evidence for some of these animals during Book of Mormon-times; some can be answered as examples of "loan-shifting."
- John L. Sorenson discusses animals in Mesamerica (e.g., peccary [wild pig]); proposes that some animals in the Book of Mormon are New World animals with Old World terms applied to them.
[85]↩︎
Peccaries were tamed and used for food by the ancient Olmec, Maya, and Aztec.
They are routinely called "pig-like" by zoological sources.
[86]↩︎
1 Nephi 18:25 mentions the Nephites encountering both "the goat" and "the wild goat," suggesting two different types of animals. Ether 9:18 mentions only "goats" among the Jaredites.
[87]↩︎
One author writing in 1838 said that "there were neither oxen, nor asses, nor goats, on all the continent of America, when it was first discovered, a few hundred years ago." This claim has persisted.
[88]↩︎
John L. Sorenson has noted how "One of nine Hebrew words for sheep, zemer, is translated in different versions of the Bible as both 'mountain sheep' and 'rock-goat,' while one Jewish scholar believes it to mean an antelope."
- John L. Sorenson provides evidence of loan-shifting in Mesoamerica.
- John L. Sorenson discusses metals, animals, etc. in the Book of Mormon and ancient Mesoamerica in response to criticisms by Deanne G. Matheny.
[89]↩︎
One study published in 2006 reviewed the distribution of this native species of sheep and noted:
Historically, desert bighorn sheep occurred throughout Coahuila, Mexico . . . We found historical documentation of bighorn sheep in 14 mountain ranges (Sierra Alamitos, Sierra Maderas del Carmen, Sierra la Encantada, Sierra Hechiceros, Sierra del Pino, Sierra Mojada, Sierra el Rey, Sierra San Marcos y del Pino, Sierra Gavia, and Sierra la Paila), including 4 previously not recorded (Sierra el Fuste, Sierra el Almagre, Sierra de la Madera, and Sierra la Fragua). In addition, one archaeological site with remains of bighorn sheep was identified (La Candelaria Cave).
- Alejandro Espinosa-T. et al. discuss the distribution of the native sheep species Ovis canadensis mexicana in northern Mexico.
[90]↩︎
1 Nephi 18:25 mentions both "the cow and the ox" present in the New World. Ether 9:18 similarly lists both "oxen" and "cows" as domesticated by the Jaredites.
[91]↩︎
Since the 1830s skeptics have argued that "there were neither oxen, nor asses, nor goats, on all the continent of America, when it was first discovered."
[92]↩︎
Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper have written how "different species of bovids are and have been native to the New World" and argue that any number might satisfy the Book of Mormon "ox" or "cow."
John L. Sorenson and Michael Ash, on the other hand, have argued for loan shifting. Ash has written:
The term “cattle” is used three times in the Book of Mormon (Ether 9:17-19; Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22), while the term “cow” is used twice (Ether 9:18; 1 Nephi 18:25). The Jaredite record is unclear as to whether “cattle” and “cows” are the same animals, or if “cows” are a subcategory of “cattle.” When the Miami Indians, who were familiar with cows, first encountered the unfamiliar buffalo they simply called them “wild cows.” Likewise the explorer DeSoto called the buffalo “vaca,” which is Spanish for “cow.” The Delaware Indians named the cow, “deer,” and a group of Miami Indians labeled sheep, which they were unfamiliar with, “looks-like-a-cow.”
[93]↩︎
1 Nephi 18:25 pairs "the ass and the horse" as being "for the use of men."
[94]↩︎
As one skeptical author wrote in 1964, "The ancient Americans had no horses or asses."
[95]↩︎
Scholars including Janne M. Sjodahl and John L. Sorenson have favored loan shifting to explain this particular anachronism, while Wade E. Miller and Matthew Roper have written on the possibility of different types of equus (including the ass) present in ancient America may have survived into Book of Mormon times.
[96]↩︎
The single reference to honey bees in the Book of Mormon appears at Ether 2:3, which reads, "And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind."
The reference to "the bee that is in the land of Assyria" in 2 Nephi 17:18 is a citation of Isaiah 7.
[97]↩︎
Dan Vogel, for instance, has written that "the presence of the honey bee in the New World dates to after European colonization."
A Catholic website also lists bees as an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.
- Dan Vogel says the honey bee in the New World post-dates European colonization.
- Catholic Answers lists "bees" as an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.
[98]↩︎
Hugh Nibley observed in 1952 that "there are seven references to bees or honey in the Book of Mormon, and without exception they all belong to the Old World."
- Hugh Nibley argues that the references to bees or honey in the Book of Mormon are in the Old World.
[99]↩︎
In a 2008 article, Ronan James Head observed,
Before humans directly husbanded bees, “honey hunting” was the favored method for acquiring wild honey and is still practiced in some parts of the world today. Intrepid hunters smoke bees out of the hive and take the honeycombs. Evidence of honey hunting reaches back to the Upper Paleolithic period (ca. 15,000 BC). The so-called European honeybee (apis mellifera) is found in the Near East from central Iran, across the Zagros and Taurus Mountains into Anatolia and the Levant, and into Egypt (but not in Iraq or the Arabian Desert). As will be seen, the evidence for hive beekeeping in the ancient Near East is strong.
- Ronan James Head provides overview of beekeeping in the ancient Near East.
[100]↩︎
Diego de Landa described native bees in the Yucatan thus:
There are two kinds of bees and both are very much smaller than ours. The larger kind of these breeds in hives, which are very small. They do not make honeycomb as ours do, but a kind of small blisters like walnuts of wax all joined one to the other and full of honey. To cut them away they do nothing more than open the hives and to break away these blisters with a small stick, and thus the honey runs out and they take the wax when they please.
Mayanist Michael Coe wrote in his book The Maya,
As he still does today, the Maya farmer raised the native stingless bees, which are kept in small, hollow logs closed with mud plaster at either end and stacked up in A-frames, but wild honey was also much appreciated.
[101]↩︎
One study published in 2018 noted:
Beekeeping—providing a safe residence for bees in order to exploit them—is an ancient technology in both the Old and New Worlds. The oldest known Old World beehives are from Tel Rehov, in what is today Israel, about 900 B.C.E.; the oldest known in the Americas is from the Late Preclassic or Protoclassic period Maya site of Nakum, in the Yucatán peninsula of Mexico, between 300 B.C.E.–200/250 C.E.
- K. Kris Hirst discusses the presence of beekeeping and stingless bees in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.
[102]↩︎
The Book of Mormon mentions, iron, steel, copper, gold, silver, and brass as being manufactured or worked among the people according to passages including 2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 8:10; 11:3, 8–10; Ether 7:9: 10:23.
[103]↩︎
Charles Shook, for instance, wrote in 1910 that "none of the ancient peoples had attained to the stage of culture attributed to the peoples of the Book of Mormon, being ignorant of the arts of smelting and working iron."
In 1995 the Smithsonian released a statement saying, "Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron."
[104]↩︎
John L. Sorenson wrote in 1995 how "the conventional scientific view about the role of metal in Mesoamerica, and particularly about its date, is in the process of major change. Scholarly developments on the topic in the coming decade will be worth watching."
Brant Gardner admits that "confirmation of early metal-working is still absent," but also points out that "for many years the presumed earliest date for metalworking in Mesoamerica was 900 A.D., but several recent discoveries have pushed that time frame earlier. Linguistic evidence shows the terms for metal as early as 1000 B.C., although no samples have been found that approach that time-depth."
[105]↩︎
In terms of Old World metallurgy, the Book of Mormon's depiction of Laban's steel sword and Nephi's steel bow is, according to Latter-day Saint researchers, no longer problematic, as steel (carburized iron) is now attested in ancient Judah as early as the tenth century BC. Furthermore, they point out that "steel" is sometimes used in the KJV Bible to translate the Hebrew word for bronze.
[106]↩︎
Alma 18:9–12 mentions that the Lamanite king Lamoni had "horses and chariots," while 3 Nephi 3:22 says the people used "chariots" in migration.
[107]↩︎
One critic, for example, wrote in 1964 that "Horses and chariots are mentioned frequently in Joseph Smith’s war tales. This is pure imagination. The early Americans prior to the Spanish conquest had no horses nor, for that matter, beasts of burden of any sort. . . . The chariots would, of course, suggest wheels. This is another gross blunder. The wheel was never used in America before the coming of the Europeans, and was not adopted by the Indians even after they had come into possession of the Spanish horses. They either rode in the animals or used them to pull travois."
[108]↩︎
John L. Sorenson and Brant Gardner have both suggested that the "chariots" mentioned in the Book of Mormon might be a royal litter. Royal Skousen further notes how in 3 Nephi 3:22 the "chariots" are mentioned in the context of migration, not war, and how they could thus be seen as "wagons (or perhaps carts) [used] in order to move the families, food supplies, and property."
[109]↩︎
While there is evidence that pre-Columbian peoples knew about the wheel, as seen in the example of small wheeled figurines, there is no evidence of extensive travel with wheeled vehicles pulled by animals in ancient America.
[110]↩︎
The Liahona is described as a "compass" in 1 Nephi 18:12, 21; 2 Nephi 5:12 calls it "the ball, or compass." Alma 37:38 calls it "a ball, or director" and a few verses later in vv. 43–44 a "compass."
[111]↩︎
The earliest sustained critical reading of the Book of Mormon, Alexander Campbell's "Delusions" published in 1831, mentioned the "compass" as an anachronism in the text. "Great must be the faith of the Mormonites in this new Bible!!! The mariners compass was only known in Europe about 300 years ago; but Nephi knew all about steam boats and the compass 2400 years ago."
Campbell and other critics commonly refer to it as a "mariner's compass."
[112]↩︎
Michael Ash, for instance, has written, "The Liahona does not operate in the typical fashion of a magnetic compass. Rather than pointing to cardinal directions (or pointing to magnetic North), the Liahona operated by the power of God (1 Nephi 16:28) and told the Lehites the direction they should go. One of the primary definitions of 'compass' is round or circular. In fact the word 'compass' seems to be just the word to describe the Liahona."
Two Latter-day Saint authors, Timothy Gervais and John L. Joyce, have compared the Liahona with the medieval device called an astrolabe.
[113]↩︎
The Nephite monetary system is described in Alma 11 as consisting of "pieces" of silver and gold measured against units of grain (e.g., v. 4).
[114]↩︎
As one skeptical website put it, "Coinage wasn't really invented until after Lehi left Jerusalem. Furthermore, no evidence of any coins, which would have been very numerous, have ever been found which could be attributed to the Nephite monetary system."
[115]↩︎
Since at least the 1960s, Latter-day Saint scholars have argued that "the word coin is not used in the Book of Mormon. It does say that these were their pieces of gold and silver and these were their measurements. A senine was equal to one measure of meal or of barley or any other types of grain."
[116]↩︎
Helaman 3:7–11 says cement was used in the construction of Nephite houses and cities.
[117]↩︎
Charles A. Shook asked in a 1916 book "where the evidence is to be found that the present territory of the United States was formerly inhabited by civilized races who built houses of 'cement'."
Heber J. Grant reported once being challenged by a skeptic to show evidence that cement was used in ancient America.
Janis Hutchinson listed cement alongside "linen, silk, wheels, chariots, compasses . . . and glass" as anachronistic in the Book of Mormon.
[118]↩︎
Multiple Latter-day Saint authors have pointed to the attestation of the use of cement among pre-Columbian peoples.
[119]↩︎
Scholars recognize the use of cement, for example, among the ancient Maya.
[120]↩︎
Helaman 7:10 says there was a "highway which led to the chief market" in the city of Zarahemla.
[121]↩︎
Gordon Fraser in 1964 wrote how "roads were not in existence [in ancient America] during the Book of Mormon period." Another writer in 1989 similarly maintained, "The Indians could not have had any use for many roads and highways mentioned in the Book of Mormon, for they had no wheeled vehicles, though the discovery of wheeled toys is proof at least the principle was known. Transporting was limited to the canoe and, in the case of land transport, to litters borne by men."
- Gordon H. Fraser argues that warfare was unknown to the Maya during Book of Mormon times; lists weapons like the bow and arrow, and the chariot, as being anachronisms.
- Peter Bartley argues that the crops, animals, and metallurgy in the Book of Mormon are anachronisms.
[122]↩︎
In 2020 the website Evidence Central presented new evidence from LiDAR technology that confirmed how "the ancient Maya, in particular, built and used highways 'from the Late Formative through the Postclassic periods' (ca. 400 BC–AD 1500) in a manner that fits descriptions of highways found in the Book of Mormon."
- Evidence Central presents evidence for the presence of highways in Mesoamerica.
[123]↩︎
Ether 2:23 depicts the Lord as telling the Brother of Jared that the barges used to cross the ocean could not have "windows" lets they be "dashed in pieces."
Ether 3:1 says that the Brother of Jared "did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass."
[124]↩︎
One author in 1840, for instance, wrote that "window-glass was not invented till many centuries" after the events narrated in Ether 2.
Clark Braden ridiculed the "glass" mentioned in Ether 3:1 in an 1884 debate by sarcastically calling it "another scientific discovery—glass at the time of Babel."
Another critic writing in 2003 maintained,
What kind of windows would be "dashed in pieces" by ocean waves? A porthole, opened for light, cannot be dashed in pieces. Only a window covered with some translucent material such as glass would run this danger. Nowadays we think it only natural that windows for admitting light are provided with glass. And in Joseph Smith's day, window glass was very common. But at the time Jared's people were supposed to have lived, translucent windows were still several thousand years in the future. Windows were simply holes cut into the walls. There was no type of window in ancient times that could be "dashed in pieces" by ocean waves! The Book of Mormon is obviously talking about 19th century windows.
[125]↩︎
Michael R. Ash, for example, has written, "Thanks to modern research, however, we find that some Egyptians had plaques of blue glass and glass beads as early as the third millennium B.C."
John A. Tvedtnes argued that the "windows" described in Ether 2:23 could have had simple shutters instead of glass, and further notes how the thing being "dashed to pieces" may not be the windows themselves but the vessels. He wrote:
The mention of windows that could be “dashed in pieces” in Ether 2:23 is said to be anachronistic, since glass windows were not invented until the late Middle Ages. Actually, the earliest attestations of glass are from the eighth century B.C. But the term “window” originally referred to an opening through which the wind could enter. It is found 42 times in the Bible where, of course, it does not refer to glass windows, as we know them. In 2 Kings 13:17 we read that a window in the palace was opened, so windows sometimes had doors or shutters. The same is true of the “window” that Noah built into the ark. It seems likely that Ether 2:23 means not that the windows in the Jaredite barges would break, but that the barges themselves, would break if they had windows built into them. This, the Lord explains in the next verse, is because they would go through extremely turbulent conditions at sea, sometimes being buried beneath the waves. Windows would mean additional cuts through the wood that, even if shuttered, would weaken the wooden structure, making it more fragile and thus liable to be “dashed in pieces.” If we read only the sentence containing the word “windows” and read it out of context, then the antecedent of “they” would, indeed, be “windows.” But it is probable that the antecedent is “vessels,” the last word in the preceding sentence.
[126]↩︎
According to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine, "Archaeologists have found glass beads dating to as early as the third millenium BCE. Glazes based on the same materials and technology date earlier still."
[127]↩︎
Mentioned as a weapon—called a "cimeter"—used by the Nephites and Lamanites at Enos 1:20; Alma 27:29; 44:8.
[128]↩︎
In 1857 one author pointed to "the cimeter, a Turkish weapon, not know until after the time of Mohommed" as one of the "evidences of [the Book of Mormon's] modern origin."
In 1921, a "Mr. Couch" wrote to James E. Talmage, "Reference is frequently made in the Book of Mormon to "swords and cimiters." The use of the word scimeter does not occur in other literature before the rise of the Mohammedan power and apparently that peculiar weapon was not developed until long after the Christian era. It does not, therefore appear likely that the Nephites or Lamanites possessed either the weapon or the term."
Another author in 1981 asked, "Is there a reasonable explanation for the Book of Mormon people allegedly having had scimitars—cimeters that originated in the orient, when they allegedly had no contact with the orient?"
[129]↩︎
Various Latter-day Saint authors have pointed to ancient sickle swords and other curved weapons from Egypt, Israel, and Mesopotamia as possible candidates for the Book of Mormon's "cimeter."
[130]↩︎
Sickle swords that were the forerunner of the modern scimitar are well-attested before 600 BC in the ancient Near East.
[131]↩︎
1 Nephi 4:9 describes the sword of Laban as being made of "most precious steel." 1 Nephi 16:18 describes Nephi having a bow "made of fine steel." 2 Nephi 5:15 says Nephi made tools out of steel, and Ether 7:9 says the Jaredites had steel swords.
[132]↩︎
Clark Braden in 1884, for example, said, "Laban's sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards."
Another skeptic in 1922 wrote, "Nephi is stated to have had a bow of steel which he broke shortly after he had left Jerusalem, some 600 years B.C. There is no record that I know of which allows the Jews the knowledge of steel at such a period."
- Clark Braden argues that Laban's steel sword is an anachronism in the volume; attributes this mistake to Sidney Rigdon.
- W. E. Riter encloses questions from Mr. Couch for B. H. Roberts about BOM issues.
[133]↩︎
Latter-day Saint geologist William Revell Phillips noted in 2003:
By Nephi’s time, Canaan had entered the Iron Age (Tylecote, 40), and Nephi must have brought with him a few iron and steel objects (e.g., Laban’s sword and Nephi’s bow) as well as a knowledge of smelting. When commanded to make tools for ship building, Nephi asked help to find ore but seemed to know how to proceed from there (1 Ne. 17:8-11). A simple fire pit furnace, even with bellows, cannot melt iron, but yields iron “bloom” by the reduction of iron oxide ores. This spongy mass of tiny iron crystals is forced to “wrought iron” with hammer and anvil after the manner of the western pioneer blacksmiths. Wrought iron may become steel by “carburizing” in the same pit furnace (Phillips, 41). This technology was well known in Jerusalem by 600 B.C.
- William Revell Phillips discusses metals in the Book of Mormon in both its Old and New World contexts.
[134]↩︎
Lloyd Weeks wrote how steel is "an alloy of iron and carbon" and explains:
Evidence for the intentional quenching and tempering of carburized iron comes from 11th century BC sites such as Lapithos, Idalion, Amathus, and Kouklia-Skales on Cyprus. This is matched by a 12th/11th century BC pick from Mount Adir in Israel that is made of quenched and tempered steel (Maddin 1982 ) and possibly by an even earlier, Middle Bronze Age blade from Pella (Jordan) of quenched steel, although its archaeological context is questionable (Smith et al. 1984). In other parts of the Near East, however, iron with inconsistent carburization and little or no evidence for developed heat treatment continued to be produced well into the 1st millennium BC (e.g., Curtis et al. 1979 ).
Biblical scholar Philip J. King also explained, "Wrought iron heated in contact with charcoal (carbon) at high temperature produces carburized iron or steel, which is more malleable than cast iron. Steel can be hardened by quenching (practiced as early as the tenth century B.C.E.), that is, cooling off the red-hot steel by sudden immersion into a vat of cold liquid."
Ruth Russo agreed, "Archaeological evidence indicates that the advent of consistent, deliberate steeling of iron occurred by 1000 B.C.E., and that production of carburized iron objects increased rapidly after 900 B.C.E."
[135]↩︎
Neal Rappleye, a Latter-day Saint scholar, has reviewed the scholarly work on the Vered Jericho sword and concludes:
Among the ruins, excavators found a large iron sword, fully intact, next to the skeletal remains of a man. It is the largest Israelite sword found to date, and measures nearly 3 and half feet long (1.04 m) and a little over 2 inches wide (6 cm); it gets narrower (.75–1.5 in; 2–4 cm) at the handle, which was made of bronze and wood and widens into a crescent shape at the end. The blade is double-edged, and metallurgical analysis determined that the iron had been carburized into “mild steel.”
- Amihai Mazar and Shmuel Aḥituv discuss the discovery of a 10th century BC iron sword in Israel.
- Neal Rappleye discusses the Vered Jericho sword.
[136]↩︎
One critic writing in 1837 claimed the Book of Mormon mentions "gunpowder" as well as "pistols and other fire arms" that were "of recent origin" and thus anachronistic to the text.
- Critic of the Church writing under the name "Z—a" states that the Book of Mormon contains anachronistic references to gunpowder, the mariner's compass, and quotes from Shakespeare.
[137]↩︎
Alexander Campbell claimed in 1831 that according to the Book of Mormon "Nephi knew all about steam boats and the compass 2400 years ago."
- Alexander Campell, in Delusions (1831) argues that the Book of Mormon contains a series of anachronisms, such as 19th-century theological discussions (e.g., infant baptism).
[138]↩︎
The Book of Mormon teaches clearly that Jesus Christ was the messiah and other related concepts from the New Testament as seen in texts such as 2 Nephi 25:19–20; Mosiah 3:8–12; Alma 5:48.
[139]↩︎
William J. Whalen observed, "The point of view of the Nephites puzzles the non-Mormon reader since the Messianic hopes of the Nephites are so clearly identified with the person of Jesus Christ, his atonement, baptism, death by crucifixion, and resurrection. Nothing anywhere so specific and prophet appears in the Old Testament."
Thomas F. O'Dea, for instance, critiqued the Book of Mormon for its explicit pre-Christian knowledge of Jesus Christ:
Throughout the book, prophets and preachers speak of Christ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and foretell with striking clarity his death and resurrection. The Christian doctrines of the Resurrection, Baptism, faith in the Atonement, and the like are the common articles of belief of the Nephite prophets and their people. It is as if the author could not imagine Hebraic messianic hope in any other terms than Christian. Throughout the book there is no usage of the messianic term “Son of Man,” although this is the one that Christ usually identified with himself in his own ministry. The expectations of the Nephites are those of nineteenth-century Protestants rather than of biblical Hebrews.
O'Dea felt that this anachronistic feature of the Book of Mormon makes sense when reading the text as a modern American Christian document:
Yet if this anachronism of feeling and reference is evidence of later origin to the critic, it was not so to the early converts. In fact, in catching and committing to print the hopes and exaltation of the revival meeting and in doing so without the distractions of emotional excess, while at the same time answering many of the most important theological problems which troubled the people of the region, the Book of Mormon was admirably suited to become what it did in fact become, the scriptures of an American church.
- Thomas F. O'Dea critiques the Book of Mormon as reflecting 19th-century revivalism and its knowledge of Christ in pre-Christian times.
- William J. Whalen discusses a number of purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "barges," "synagogues," "gospel," "Jehovah," and "church."
[140]↩︎
John A. Tvedtnes, for instance, argued:
It seems unlikely that Jesus would have been so well received by his Jewish disciples had he not conformed to their concept of the Messiah. Some of the recently-released Dead Sea Scrolls show that at least some Jews of that time expected a Messiah who would be a divine savior, performing many miracles and bringing the resurrection. In this context, the pre-Christian teachings of a Messiah found in the Book of Mormon are perfectly reasonable.
[141]↩︎
Several times the Book of Mormon mentions "synagogues" as places of worship among the Nephites, including Alma 16:13; 21:11, 16, 20; 31:13; Helaman 3:14; Moroni 7:1.
[142]↩︎
Critics of Book of Mormon historicity including Martin Lamb, Gordon Fraser, William J. Whalen, and others have argued that the mention of synagogues in the Book of Mormon is anachronistic. Richard Abanes, for instance, has claimed, "Joseph’s Israelites leave Palestine for the New World before the Babylonian captivity and proceed to build synagogues in the Americas “after the manner of the Jews.” But the Jews in Palestine did not construct synagogues until after their Babylonian captivity had begun."
[143]↩︎
Latter-day Saint authors have discussed evidence for the underlying concept of the synagogue predating Lehi's departure, and have suggested that "synagogue" was Joseph's translation for merely an assembly place for religious observers.
[144]↩︎
Louis Finkelstein, writing in 1975, concluded that "there were prayer gatherings under prophetic guidance even before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., and second, that out of these gatherings there grew imperceptibly the more definitely institutionalized synagogues that played so important a role in the Maccabean age."
Lee Levine, writing in 2005, concluded that city gates played a similar role before the Exile that synagogues played afterwards.
- Louis Finkelstein argues that the synagogue has its origins in early prophetic institutions predating the exile.
- Lee Levine discusses the evidence for pre-exilic synagogues.
[145]↩︎
Mosiah 29 depicts democratic reforms by king Mosiah that instituted a policy where judges were chosen "by the voice of the people."
[146]↩︎
Earl Wonderli, for instance, has observed that "many of the political ideas current in America at the time are paralleled in the account of King Mosiah’s final days. After 500 years under a monarchy, the Nephites decided to discontinue their kingship at the urging of King Mosiah in favor of judges chosen by the people. The fact that there are judges rather than a legislature is an interesting twist, but this could derive from a misunderstanding of the Book of Judges in the Bible."
Al Case similarly asks "why is a democracy after a monarchy described?" in the Book of Mormon that is "similar to the history of the U.S."
- Al Case lists purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon based on Joseph's cultural background and use of the KJV.
- Earl M. Wunderli argues that the political ideas in the Book of Mormon reflect those Joseph would have encountered in 19th-century America.
[147]↩︎
Richard Bushman, for instance, concluded after his study of "democracy" in the Book of Mormon:
With so many similarities before us, it is tempting to conclude that Joseph Smith contrived his narrative from the biblical elements in nineteeth-century American culture and leave it at that. But the problems of interpretation are not so easily dismissed. . . . In fact, no Americans, including the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay, followed biblical political models as closely as Book of Mormon people. Biblical language was used to sanctify American history and American political institutions, but Hebrew precedents did not deeply inform historical writing nor shape political institutions. The innermost structure of Book of Mormon politics and history are biblical, while American forms are conspicuously absent.
- Richard L. Bushman argues that there are substantial differences between 19th-century American democracy and the system of judges introduced in Mosiah 29.
[148]↩︎
Brant Gardner and Gregory Dundas have pointed out that the "voice of the people" in Mosiah 29 appears to describe a limited group, not the populace at large, which parallels other examples.
- Gregory Steven Dundas argues that the government introduced in Mosiah 29 is closer to that in the book of Judges than the democracy of 19th-century America.
- Brant A. Gardner discusses the "voice of the people" in Mosiah 29 and subsequent texts.
[149]↩︎
In 2017 Science magazine reported evidence for proto-democratic political structures among some early Mesoamerican cultures, including what could be called a republic.
- Lizzie Wade in Science Magazine reports on work showing republican government in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.
[150]↩︎
Alma 30:44 mentions the "motion" of the earth, while Helaman 12:15 declares, "According to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun."
[151]↩︎
Clark Braden, for instance, criticized the Book of Mormon in 1884 for its heliocentric cosmology.
In 1992, Latter-day Saint scientist Erich Robert Paul referred to Helaman 12:15 as "ostensibly a historical anachronism." He continued:
With a few exceptions, pre-Copernican views of the cosmos, whether Hebrew, Greek, or Egyptian, strongly favored a geocentric cosmos. If the Book of Mormon reflects Old Testament understanding of the cosmos, then the discrepancy can only be rationalized as being highly idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, though heliocentrism increasingly dominated Western thinking since the late Renaissance, a sun-centered worldview was not unknown in pre-Christian days.
- Clark Braden criticizes the Book of Mormon for its heliocentrism.
- Erich Robert Paul discusses heliocentrism in the Book of Mormon.
[152]↩︎
John L. Sorenson noted in his book Mormon's Codex how the ancient Maya tracked the movements of various planets and suggests this can give a context to the astronomy in the Book of Mormon.
BYU philosopher David A. Grandy posits that the Book of Mormon's seeming heliocentrism is in fact actually a more nuanced. It is not, Grandy argues, a strictly mechanistic cosmology but rather a divine cosmology that reflects Mormon's understanding of God's operative force in the universe.
Sidney Sperry suggested, "The Babylonians were famous for their empirical studies of the heavenly bodies. It is possible that some heliocentric thinking may have been "in the air" at the time that the Nephites left Jerusalem about 600 B.C."
[153]↩︎
Brant A. Gardner notes how the "typical [Mesoamerican] conception of the sun was that it passed through the underworld after descending in the west so that it could arise in the east." According to Gardner, then, "It would seem more likely that Joseph Smith made this emendation [at Helaman 12:15]."
- Brant A. Gardner discusses Helaman 12:15 and suggests it is a modern expansion by JS.
[154]↩︎
Aristarchus of Samos, who lived in the early third century BC, argued for a heliocentric cosmos not unlike Copernicus's model. As Thomas Heath wrote in an 1913 study:
There is not the slightest doubt that Aristarchus was the first to put forward the heliocentric hypothesis. Ancient testimony is unanimous on the point, and the first witness is Archimedes, who was a younger contemporary of Aristarchus, so that there was no possibility of a mistake.
- Thomas Heath summarizes the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus.
- Christián C. Carman and Rodolfo P. Buzón summarize the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos.
[155]↩︎
The Gadianton Robbers are described as a "band" and a "secret society" at Helaman 6:18 and 3 Nephi 3:9.
[156]↩︎
The Book of Mormon's description of the Gadianton Robbers as a "secret combination" in the context of Jacksonian anti-Masonry is commonly cited as an example of an anachronistic cultural element in the text.
As Thomas F. O'Dea wrote, "The Gadianton robbers who take secret oaths and are a subversive element in the history of the Nephites are the reflection in the book of the outcry against Masonry of the 1820’s, made more strident in New York because of the [William] Morgan case. That anti-Masonry was a democratic movement is confirmed by the picture given in this work of Masonic activities."
[157]↩︎
Latter-day Saint authors have disputed the parallels between the Gadianton Robbers and the Freemasons, and instead have argued that they are depicted in the text as political insurrectionists using guerrilla warfare tactics known from history.
They likewise dispute that the term "secret combination" of necessity must be referring to Freemasonry. Instead, they argue, the term was a catch-all for any political or social conspiracy that included but was not unique to the perceived threats of Freemasonry.
[158]↩︎
2 Nephi 28:7–9 preaches against the concept of universal salvation.
[159]↩︎
Dan Vogel, writing in 1993, argued that "it is doubtful that a study of ancient American cultures would produce a similar context for understanding this central theological focus of the Book of Mormon. The degree to which Smith adapted his narrative to the concerns of his modern audience is a question each reader must answer for him- or herself."
- Dan Vogel argues that the Book of Mormon reflects the 19th-century debates concerning Universalism.
[160]↩︎
Martin Tanner, responding to Vogel's argument, noted how "the idea of universal salvation was not born in the nineteenth century, nor anywhere close to that time."
Tanner points out that "early Zoroastrianism likewise contained the idea of universal salvation. There are also Old Testament passages which have been interpreted as authority for the idea of universal salvation."
- Martin S. Tanner addresses Dan Vogel's claims that the Book of Mormon addresses 19th-century anti-Universalism.
[161]↩︎
Baptism is mentioned throughout the text as a practice among Book of Mormon peoples (e.g., 2 Nephi 31:13–17; Mosiah 18:21; 21:35; Alma 7:15; 19:35; Moroni 6:2).
[162]↩︎
Baptism, including infant baptism, in the Book of Mormons has been commonly cited as an anachronism in the text.
[163]↩︎
Latter-day Saint writers often point to the Jewish mikvah or pool used for ritual cleansing that pre-dates the Christian era as a forerunner to the concept of baptism.
[164]↩︎
Infant baptism is discussed extensively and condemned by Mormon in Moroni 8.
[165]↩︎
Critics since the 1830s have argued the debate on infant baptism in Moroni 8 is anachronistic, with one critic in 2023 flatly stating such "is an anachronism for the Nephites."
[166]↩︎
Matthew Roper, in The Baptism of Little Children in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, highlighted Aztec sources depicting the ritual cleansing and washing of infants.
- Matthew Roper discusses evidence for infant baptism in pre-Columbian America.
[167]↩︎
Mesoamerican specialists have documented the practice of newborns being ritually washed. Michael D. Coe and Stephen Houston, for example, have observed:
The Spanish Fathers were quite astounded that the Maya had a baptismal rite, which took place at an auspicious time when there were a number of children between the ages of three and twelve in the settlement. The ceremony took place in the house of a town elder, in the presence of their parents who had observed various abstinences in honor to the occasion. The children and their fathers remained inside a cord held by four old and venerable men representing the Rain God, while the priest performed various acts of purification and blessed the candidates with incense, tobacco, and holy water. From that time on the older girls, at least, were considered marriageable. A part of such rituals is the héets meek, a ceremony in which babies are placed on the hip, soon ready for walking.
[168]↩︎
Throughout the Book of Mormon (e.g., 1 Nephi 13:29; 22:15; 2 Nephi 2:17–18; Alma 8:9; 10:25; 12:17) Satan is depicted as a personified, supernatural entity who is wholly evil and the opponent of both humankind and God.
[169]↩︎
As Alex Douglas wrote in 2023, "The Nephites also believe in the existence of Satan, though . . . the concept of Satan did not arise until the Persian period (sixth to fourth centuries BCE), most likely under the influence of Zoroastrianism."
- Alex Douglas lists a number of purported anachronistic theological beliefs in the Book of Mormon, such as heaven, hell, baptism, and the Nephite concept of the Messiah.
[170]↩︎
Latter-day Saint scholars argue that texts such as Isaiah 14:12 and Psalm 82 and ancient myths about the fall of rebellious deities could have informed Book of Mormon prophets' understanding of the identity of Satan or Lucifer.
[171]↩︎
"Christ" is used throughout the Book of Mormon as a name or title for Jesus the Messiah (e.g., 2 Nephi 10:3, 7; 2 Nephi 25:16, 19; Mosiah 3:8).
[172]↩︎
Richard Packham, for example, wrote,
Putting aside for the moment the question "What Old Testament prophets said that the messiah would be named Jesus Christ?" we would like to ask what this passage must have looked like in "Reformed Egyptian," since it is translating two occurrences of the same word ("the anointed one") in different ways, one with the Greek word "Christ" and one with the Hebrew word "Messiah." Why Another question is why Nephi would think that the word "Christ" is a "name"! It is not a name, even though many Sunday School children think of it as a name ("Jesus Christ was the son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ"). It is a title. This passage is like saying "The name of the Father of our country was President Washington."
Packham concludes that "whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed to have Greek and Hebrew words at his disposal, but he did not understand their meaning. Does that sound like God? Or Nephi? Or Joseph Smith?"
- Earl M. Wunderli argues that "Christ" is an anachronism in the Book of Mormon; Joseph did not know "Christ" and "Messiah" are the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of the same word.
- Richard Packham argues that "Christ" is an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.
[173]↩︎
In the Book of Mormon Reference Companion published by Deseret Book, Stephen D. Ricks wrote,
The term “Christ” is also a very acceptable rendering of the Hebrew term “Messiah” into nineteenth-century English. The root meaning of both of these words is the same—the “anointed”—Christ from the Greek christos, and MESSIAH from the Hebrew mashiach. “Messiah” also appears frequently in the Book of Mormon, sometimes in combination with “Christ” (e.g., 2 Ne. 25:16, 18-19).
Brant Gardner similarly sees the word "Christ" as the result of Joseph's anachronistic translation of the text into English, writing,
“Christ” is a title, not a name. Nephi understood that distinction, for he later used the title correctly: “And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.” Nevertheless, 2 Nephi 25:19 somewhat awkwardly uses “Christ” as a name and also uses “Messiah” as a title in the same verse. It is hard to understand what underlying text would have yielded both the anglicized form of the Hebrew word and the Anglicization of the Greek form of the Hebrew word in the same sentence. A simpler explanation is that Joseph Smith added the phrase “his name shall be Jesus Christ,” rather than making an exact translation of the text.
- Stephen D. Ricks discusses alleged linguistic, cultural, and doctrinal anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.
- Brant A. Gardner discusses the use of "Christ" in the Book of Mormon; argues that the phrase "his name shall be Jesus Christ" in 2 Nephi 25:19 is a translator's gloss.
[174]↩︎
2 Nephi 29:3–10 contains the only mention of the word "Bible" in the entire Book of Mormon.
[175]↩︎
William J. Whalen, for example, wrote, "The Greek word biblia from which we derive the word bible was first used as a name of the scriptures in the fifth century after Christ. It means 'books' or 'booklets' and is used to designate a collection of inspired writings bound in codex forms. But in 2 Nephi 29:3 we read, 'Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.'"
James White similarly argued, "The 'Bible' is mentioned in 2 Nephi 29:3. Again, this was a common term to Joseph Smith, but what would it have meant to an inhabitant of this hemisphere long ago? Nothing at all. The term was not applied to the Scriptures until long after Lehi left the Old world."
- James R. White argues that the Book of Mormon's references to pre-exilic knowledge of crucifixion, "Bible," and "compass" are anachronisms.
- William J. Whalen discusses a number of purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "barges," "synagogues," "gospel," "Jehovah," and "church."
[176]↩︎
Edward J. Brandt, for example, argued in the Ensign:
The word Bible is used eleven times in the Book of Mormon, all within four verses of one chapter. It comes from the Greek biblion, meaning “books,” and other similar ancient roots. In Joseph Smith’s time, as well as today, it was the title or synonym for the Hebrew and Greek scriptural record. The primary word for a record or book in the ancient Hebrew is Sepher. It is translated 185 times in the Old Testament as “book,” which, as mentioned earlier, comes from Old English. Thus, in the Bible we read of the “book of the generations” (Gen. 5:1), “book of the covenant” (Ex. 24:7), “book of the law” (Josh. 1:8), “book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (1 Kgs. 14:19), and “a roll of a book” (Jer. 36:2). Even though the word book was not known in Old Testament times, it was used in the translation to communicate an idea best understood by the use of that expression.
- Edward J. Brandt discusses the presence of "adieu," "bible," and "baptize" in the Book of Mormon.
- Robert F. Smith addresses the use of "Bible" in the Book of Mormon; shows that words for "books" and "sacred books" appears in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
[177]↩︎
Timothy is the name of a Nephite disciple (3 Nephi 19:4) and Lachoneus is the name of a Nephite chief judge (3 Nephi 1:1).
[178]↩︎
Jerald and Sandra Tanner, for instance, wrote, "The Book of Mormon also contains the name Timothy (3 Nephi 19:4). Timothy is a Greek name and never appears in the Old Testament. In the same verse that we find the name Timothy we also find the name Jonas. Jonas is the New Testament name for Jonah and is found in Matthew 12:39. The appearance of Greek words in the Book of Mormon— especially the words Alpha and Omega—is another evidence that it is not an ancient record, but rather a modern composition."
Richard Packham similarly sees Greek names in the Book of Mormon as anachronistic.
- The Tanners argue that Greek words and names such as "Alpha and Omega" are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.
- Richard Packham argues that the presence of Greek words/names such as "synagogue" and "Timothy" are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.
[179]↩︎
Hugh Nibley observed in 1957, "Since the fourteenth century B.C. at latest, Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world, and since the middle of the seventh century Greek mercenaries and merchants closely bound to Egyptian interest (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks), swarmed throughout the Near East."
The Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon writes, "Occurrence of names of Greek origin [in the Book of Mormon] suggests the possibility of Greek contacts with the eastern Mediterranean area in antiquity. Since the late second millennium BC, Syrians and Phoenicians had trading contacts with the Aegean kingdoms, and in the first millennium BC Greek mercenaries and merchants maintained a significant and ongoing presence in Syro-Palestinian territories."
- Hugh W. Nibley discusses the presence of Greek names (e.g., Timothy) in the Book of Mormon; notes that contact between Syria, Palestine, and the Aegean world has been dated to at least the 14th century BC.
- Stephen D. Ricks et al. discusses the appearance of the Greek names Jonas, Lachoneus, and Timothy in the Book of Mormon.
[180]↩︎
Used throughout the Book of Mormon to describe a group of believers or a place of worship (e.g., 1 Nephi 4:26; 2 Nephi 25:14; Mosiah 18:17; Alma 1:19).
[181]↩︎
"Church" or "churches" is often listed by skeptics as one of "many words used in the book that have a Greek or Latin origin later than six hundred years before Christ, and many others wholly modern."
[182]↩︎
Brant Gardner, writing in his 2007 commentary on the Book of Mormon, explains:
“Church” is the English translation for the Greek ekklesia, but of course, Mormon would not have written ekklesia on the plates. How could there be a church in the Book of Mormon before there was a church in the New Testament? The Greek word means a group of citizens called out to assemble for political purposes, outside of the religious use of the term. It is used in the Septuagint interchangeably with “synagogue” to translate the Hebrew word for “assembly.” Although the Hebrew qahal “assembly,” could be the basis for the translation to the English “church” in the Book of Mormon, any argument based on specific words in the Book of Mormon ignores the problems of translation. We do not know what word Mormon wrote. We know only that Joseph Smith translated it as “church.”
- Brant A. Gardner discusses the use of "church" in the Book of Mormon; argues it is an example of a translator's anachronism.
[183]↩︎
Used once in the Book of Mormon at Jacob 7:27.
[184]↩︎
Richard Abanes, for instance, wrote that "the French word adieu (Jacob 7:27), which is an odd farewell to find in a book originally written in 'Reformed Egyptian' centuries before Christ, then translated into English in the 1800s."
Another skeptic claimed, "Much is made of the appearance of the word ‘adieu,’ (Jacob 7:27) because it is so obviously and ridiculously out of place."
[185]↩︎
Writing in his 2007 commentary on the Book of Mormon, Grant Gardner explained:
It might seem unusual that the French word adieu is in a text that purports to be a translation of a document written prior to the development of the French language. However, while it is certainly true that French should not be on the plates, it is equally true that English should not be on the plates. It is no more surprising to see a French word in the translation than it is to see the English words in the translation. Adieu literally means “to God,” and was part of the basic vocabulary of English speakers during Joseph Smith’s time (and remains part of English today). The term adequately communicates the meaning intended.
[186]↩︎
The word adieu has been in English language dictionaries since the early 1800s and has been used to translate words and phrases in Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew.
[187]↩︎
Sam is given as the name of the brother of Nephi at 1 Nephi 2:5.
[188]↩︎
M. T. Lamb, for example, argued in 1887:
The first word that will probably attract the attention of ordinary reader at the beginning of the book (page 4), is the name of Lehi's third son, Sam. Here is a boy six hundred years before Christ who has the unmistakable Yankee nickname for Samuel. There is certainly nothing Hebraistic about the name, or does it sound like any Egyptian name we ever heard.
In the 1990s another critical author wrote, "Sam is a Yankee name, Samuel would have been a Jewish name."
- Martin Thomas Lamb claims that the Book of Mormon contains modern words that are anachronisms, such as such as "faculties," "Synagogue," "Bible," and the proper name "Sam."
- Marian Bodine provides a listing of various purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as "adieu" and the name "Sam."
[189]↩︎
John A. Tvedtnes has noted, "The name Sam is attested on a bronze ringmounted seal dated to the seventh century B.C. While others have read this name as Shem, in paleo Hebrew there is no distinction in writing between ś and š (the latter written sh in English)."
- John A. Tvedtnes et al. discuss the evidence of "Josh" and "Sam" being authentic names.
- Stephen D. Ricks et al. discusses "Sam" in the Book of Mormon; proposes it might be shortened form of "Samuel" or Egyptian in etymology.
[190]↩︎
Lehi in 2 Nephi 1:14 speaks of "the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return."
[191]↩︎
Act 3, Scene 1 of Hamlet includes the line: "The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveler returns." This, according to skeptics of Book of Mormon historicity, is quoted in the Book of Mormon. As Alexander Campbell quipped, "Shakespeare was read by Nephi 2200 years before he was born."
Another critic wrote:
Then Shakespeare is translated from plates buried 1,200 years before the post was born: “The cold and silent grace, whence no traveller returns.” And this sounds unlike the ancients: “from nature up to nature’s God.” But Joe thought they sounded well and worked them in rather out of date.
[192]↩︎
Similar language, for example, appears at Job 10:20-21, as many Latter-day Saint writers have discussed. Similar concepts and language appears in sources from the ancient Near East and Mesoamerica.
[193]↩︎
The Book of Mormon directly quotes or paraphrases passages assigned to Deutero-Isaiah by many biblical scholars, including 1 Nephi 20–21 (=Isaiah 48–49) and 2 Nephi 6:16–8:25 (=Isaiah 49:24–52:2)
[194]↩︎
In 2023, David Bokovoy provided a summary overview of the problem of Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon:
One of the most significant challenges for traditional LDS readings of prophetic material is the fact that this literature grew over time and was most likely not produced by the men whose names are connected with the biblical books. This is especially true for the composition of Isaiah. Since the twentieth century, virtually all mainstream scholars have held the position that Isaiah chapters 40-66 were written after the Jewish exile into Babylon (c. 586 BCE). This means that the historical Isaiah, a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the eighty century BCE, did not write the second half of the book of Isaiah. For Latter-day Saints, this presents a direct challenge for traditionally held paradigms concerning the Book of Mormon since some of its material attributes these later chapters to Isaiah himself.
- David Bokovoy summarizes the evidence for Isaiah 40-66 being written during/after the exile; argues the presence of some of these chapters in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.
- Alex Douglas discusses purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as the presence of "Second Isaiah" and New Testament quotations.
[195]↩︎
See "Deutero-Isaiah" for more information.
[196]↩︎
The Book of Mormon quotes or paraphrases passages from the New Testament (e.g., Moroni 7:45 is similar to 1 Corinthians 13:4–7).
[197]↩︎
In 1926 one critic wrote, "Passages from the New Testament are quoted [in the Book of Mormon] hundreds of years before it was written."
Another one wrote in 2023:
Why does so much of the Bible—including quotations from the New Testament—appear in the Book of Mormon when these sources could not possibly have been accessible to the Nephites? For example, how could Abinadi use phrases from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:54-55) to describe Christ’s victory over death (Mosiah 16:7-8)? How could Alma quote from John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2) and Jesus’ conversion with Nicodemus (John 3:3) while preaching to the people at Gideon (Alma 7:9, 14)? Was the exact wording of the King James Bible given to the Nephites through revelation? Or did Joseph Smith find these ancient ideas and render them using wording he knew from the New Testament?
- James H. Snowden claims that the Book of Mormon's references to words such as "Gospel," "baptize," barges," and "Churches" are anachronisms; claims Joseph also included KJV errors into the text.
- Alex Douglas discusses purported anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as the presence of "Second Isaiah" and New Testament quotations.
[198]↩︎
Hugh Nibley an John W. Welch, for example, have posited that older sources underly some of the material shared in common in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
- Hugh Nibley argues that Paul is quoting from a preexisting source in his "Hymn to Charity" (1 Corinthians 13).
- John W. Welch discusses the Melchizedek material in Alma 13; notes that it has parallels with ancient texts such as the Melchizedek Scroll from Qumran.
[199]↩︎
Brant A. Gardner has argued that the King James Bible, including the New Testament, influenced how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, writing that "Joseph’s familiarity with King James language has supplied the vocabulary" he needed for the translation.
- Brant A. Gardner argues that the language of Moroni 7:45 is dependent upon 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.
- Brant A. Gardner discusses the influence of 19th-century vocabulary and idiomatic expressions and the KJV on the Book of Mormon text.
[200]↩︎
The Book of Mormon Central website gives the following explanations for the presence of New Testament language and quotations in the Book of Mormon:
- The resurrected Jesus as the source of some of these similarities
- Similarities Due to a Common Ancient Source
- Revelations to Nephite prophets as the source of the similarity
- Mormon and Moroni as the source of the similarity
- The translation process as the source of the similarity
The website concludes:
In sum, there may be many reasons why biblical words and phrases show up in the Book of Mormon. The text of the Book of Mormon, and its relationship to the Bible and to other ancient scriptural texts, is complex in many ways. Although we do not know for sure which of the above explanations, or combination of explanations, stands behind each of the many Old and New Testament phrases and expressions found in the Book of Mormon, it seems clear that several logically plausible sources may stand behind the writing and translation of its various passages.
- Book of Mormon Central writes on the presence of NT quotations in the BOM.
[201]↩︎
The folks at Mormonr believe it is. ;-)

Type of Response	Definition	Example
Loan-Shifting	Also called semantic transfer or semantic extension, loan-shifting is when the meaning of a word changes from one language to another or extends the meaning of a word in the same language to include new items or categories.[30]	The Book of Mormon horse may be a loan shift name for another animal.[31] This has happened in other ancient cultures.[32][33]
Archaeological Attestation	As more archaeological work is done, additional artifacts are uncovered that provide a fuller understanding of the ancient world.[34]	The scimitar, referred to as "cimeter" in the Book of Mormon, was thought to have been invented in the seventh century AD, after the Book of Mormon.[35] However, in the 1990s scholars began to identify curved swords as pre-exilic Israelite and Egyptian weapons, placing them within the Book of Mormon timeframe.[36]
Epigraphic Attestation	Epigraphy is the study of ancient inscriptions.[37] As more inscriptions are discovered and translated, knowledge of and attestation for previously unknown names and words increases.[38]	The names Alma and Sam were once thought to be anachronistic.[39] Sam is now attested as an ancient Israelite name,[40] while Alma is now also attested as a Semitic masculine name.[41][42]
Linguistic Attestation	Linguistic attestation is when a word or phrase is known in a language's lexicon.[43] With ancient languages, sometimes the word for an object might be known but there is no surviving attested physical example of the object.	There is evidence that words for metals appeared early in languages spoken in Mexico long before Lehi's arrival in the New World.[44] However, no archaeological evidence for large-scale metalworking has been discovered so far in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times.[45]
Translation	Modern translations of ancient texts, such as the Bible, introduce unintentional anachronisms in the translation.[46]	Some have argued that "adieu," a word that is French in origin, is anachronistic in Jacob 7:27.[47] "Adieu" was adopted into the English language by Joseph Smith's time[48] and had appeared in other English translations contemporary with the Book of Mormon.[49][50]
Modern Expansion	Translators sometimes expand their translations beyond the "literal" meaning of the underlying text to make conceptual and linguistic connections with the intended readers.[51]	Similar to the Aramaic Targums,[52] Joseph Smith may have added his own conceptual and linguistic expansions to the translation of the words on the plates.[53]

Anachronism	Reference	Problem	Possible Resolution
Wheat	Mosiah 9:9; 3 Nephi 18:18[55]	Wheat (T. aestivum) was unknown in pre-Columbian America.[56]	The Lehites introduced wheat to the New World but the crop did not survive long, or "wheat" could describe some other unknown cereal grain.[57]
Barley	Mosiah 7:22; Alma 11:7[58]	As with wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare) was unknown in pre-Columbian America.[59]	A species of native pre-Columbian barley (Hordeum pusillum) has been discovered in the Mississippi River valley and the southwest United States.[60]
Silk	Alma 1:29; 4:6.[61]	Protein silk obtained from the cocoons of the larvae of silkworms was unknown in pre-Columbian America.[62]	The "silk" in the Book of Mormon could be any variety of native pre-Columbian fiber obtained from various plants or moth or butterfly cocoons.[63][64]
Linen	Mosiah 10:5; Helaman 6:13; Ether 9:17; 10:24.[65]	Linen derived from flax (Linum usitatissimum) was unknown in pre-Columbian America.[66]	The "linen" in the Book of Mormon could be referring to any number of native pre-Columbian plant fibers that were woven into fabric.[67] At least one native species of flax was used for weaving by North American Indian groups.[68]
Wine (Vineyards)	Mosiah 11:15; 22:7; 3 Nephi 18:1–3; Ether 15:22.[69]	The grape species vitis vinifera was unknown in pre-Columbian America.[70]	The "wine" drunk by Book of Mormon peoples could have been an alcoholic drink derived from any number of native fruits.[71] Several different native wild grape species are attested in both North and Central America from thousands of years ago.[72]

Anachronism	Reference	Problem	Possible Resolution
Horse	1 Nephi 18:25; Enos 1:21; Alma 18:9–12[73]	The horse (Equus ferus caballus) was introduced to the New World by the Spanish.[74]	The "horse" could be a Nephite loan shift for another animal[75][76] or a translator's anachronism.[77] Recent findings suggest the presence of pre-Columbian horses in Mexico.[78]
Elephant	Ether 9:19[79]	The mammoth or mastodon (M. americanum) does not appear to have survived in ancient America into Book of Mormon times.[80]	Specimens of mammoth remains have been identified that seem to push the extinction of the animal down closer to Jaredite times.[81]
Swine	Ether 9:18[82]	Swine (Sus domesticus) were introduced to the Americas by the Spanish.[83]	The peccary (family Tayassuidae), an animal native to Central America, could qualify as the "swine" mentioned in the text.[84][85]
Sheep/Goats	1 Nephi 18:25; Ether 9:18[86]	Sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus) were introduced to the New World by the Spanish.[87]	The "sheep" or "goat" in the Book of Mormon could be a loan shift for animals such as the tapir or pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana).[88] There is a native species of sheep in northern Mexico, the bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana).[89]
Ox/Cow	1 Nephi 18:25; Ether 9:18.[90]	Domestic cattle (Bos taurus) were introduced to the New World by the Spanish.[91]	Native bovid species in ancient America as well as the possibility of loan shifting could account for oxen or cattle mentioned in the text.[92]
Ass	1 Nephi 18:25.[93]	The donkey or ass (Equus asinus) was introduced to the New World by the Spanish.[94]	"Ass" could be a Nephite loan shift for another animal.[95]
Honey bee	Ether 2:3[96]	The European or western honey bee (Apis mellifera) was not introduced to the New World until Spanish colonization.[97]	The only mention of bees in the Book of Mormon is in the context of the Old World Jaredite migration.[98] Beekeeping is abundantly attested in the ancient Near East.[99] There are known native species of bees in the New World that produce honey.[100] Beekeeping is attested in Mesoamerica as early as 300 BC.[101]

Anachronism	Reference	Problem	Possible Resolution
Metallurgy	2 Nephi 5:15; Jarom 1:8; Mosiah 8:10; 11:3, 8–10; Ether 7:9: 10:23[102]	There is no evidence for the kind of metallurgy described in the text in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.[103]	While evidence for metallurgy during Book of Mormon times is not currently available, the date for metal working in pre-Columbian America keeps being pushed closer to that time with new discoveries.[104][105]
Chariots	Alma 18:9–12; 3 Nephi 3:22[106]	Pre-Columbian peoples did not use wheeled vehicles for travel.[107]	The "chariots" mentioned in the Book of Mormon are never depicted in the context of warfare and are not explicitly said to be pulled by horses (although horses are mentioned with them). They could be something like a litter or palanquin.[108][109]
Compass	1 Nephi 18:12, 21; 2 Nephi 5:12; Alma 37:38, 43–44[110]	The mariner's compass (the magnetic compass) was not invented until the Middle Ages.[111]	The Book of Mormon is not describing a magnetic or mariner's compass, but some other round or circular object.[112]
Coins	Alma 11[113]	Coinage was not used in the Old or New Worlds before Lehi left Jerusalem, and no such Nephite "coins" have been discovered.[114]	The text describes a system of weights and measures, not coinage.[115]
Cement	Helaman 3:7–11[116]	No evidence for "cement" has been found in ancient America.[117]	The use of cement in ancient America, including Mexico and Guatemala, now has widespread attestation.[118][119]
Highways	Helaman 7:10[120]	Highways were unknown in pre-Columbian America.[121]	Highway systems were used among the ancient Maya.[122]
Windows/Glass	Ether 2:23; 3:1[123]	Glass and glass windows were unknown anciently.[124]	Glassmaking is attested as early as the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt.[125][126]
Scimitars/Cimeter	Enos 1:20; Alma 27:29; 44:8[127]	The scimitar was not invented until after the rise of Islam in the late first millennium AD.[128]	Any number of curved weapons from the ancient Near East or Mesoamerica could satisfy the Book of Mormon's description of "cimeters."[129][130]
Steel Weapons	1 Nephi 4:9; 1 Nephi 16:18; 2 Nephi 5:15; Ether 7:9[131]	Steel did not exist circa 600 BC in ancient Israel as depicted in the Book of Mormon.[132]	Steel (carburized iron) was being made in ancient Israel well before 600 BC.[133][134] A sword discovered at Vered Jericho, dating to the late seventh century BC, is made of steel.[135]
Gunpowder/Firearms	N/A	Gunpowder and firearms did not exist anciently.[136]	The Book of Mormon does not refer to gunpowder or firearms.
Steamboats	N/A	Steamboats are anachronistic for the ancient world.[137]	The Book of Mormon does not refer to steamboats.

Anachronism	Reference	Problem	Possible Resolution
Christianity/Messianism	2 Nephi 25:19–20; Mosiah 3:8–12; Alma 5:48[138]	The Nephites' explicit knowledge of Jesus and his role as Messiah goes beyond what is found in the Old Testament and is thus anachronistic.[139]	The Nephites gained their knowledge of Jesus as the coming messiah from revelation that was grounded on Old Testament concepts.[140]
Synagogues	Alma 16:13; 21:11, 16, 20; 31:13; Helaman 3:14; Moroni 7:1[141]	The synagogue did not exist until after Lehi left Jerusalem.[142]	While the synagogue known today did not arise until after the Exile, the concept of Israelites gathering in a dedicated space for worship and other reasons predated Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.[143][144]
Democracy	Mosiah 29:25–29[145]	This is a reference to modern American democracy that would have been unknown in the ancient world.[146]	The Book of Mormon does not describe true American democracy of elections by popular vote.[147] Other ancient cultures had similar conceptions of choosing political leaders by democratic means.[148][149]
Heliocentrism	Alma 30:44; Helaman 12:15[150]	A heliocentric model of the cosmos did not gain prominence until the Copernican revolution in the sixteenth century AD.[151]	The ancient Maya tracked the movement of planets, so the Nephites could have derived their understanding from this astronomical knowledge;[152] or, these passages are modern expansions by Joseph Smith.[153] At least one known ancient cosmologist posited a heliocentric model.[154]
Anti-Masonry	Helaman 6:18 and 3 Nephi 3:9[155]	The Gadianton Robbers are a thinly-veiled allusion to the Freemasons, who were distrusted in the 1820s as a secret society.[156]	The Gadianton Robbers are guerrillas engaging in tactics used to subvert the government and are unrelated to Freemasons.[157]
Anti-Universalism	2 Nephi 28:7–9[158]	The Book of Mormon's anti-universalism reflects theological debates of the 1800s.[159]	The scope of salvation and ideas of universal salvation are not unique to the nineteenth century and are found anciently.[160]
Baptism	2 Nephi 31:13–17; Mosiah 18:21; 21:35; Alma 7:15; 19:35; Moroni 6:2)[161]	Baptism was a Christian, not Jewish, practice, and does not predate the New Testament.[162]	Ritual immersion or cleansing with water predates the Christian era.[163]
Infant Baptism	Moroni 8[164]	The condemnation of infant baptism in the Book of Mormon shows signs of nineteenth-century Protestant theological debates.[165]	The practice of washing or "baptizing" infants is documented among the Maya and Aztecs.[166][167]
Satan	1 Nephi 13:29; 22:15; 2 Nephi 2:17–18; Alma 8:9; 10:25; 12:17[168]	The concept of Satan as the supernatural evil enemy of God did not arise until after Lehi fled Jerusalem.[169]	The Book of Mormon's understanding of Satan may have been informed by Biblical texts and mythological concepts common to the ancient Near East.[170]