Stephen D. Ricks discusses alleged linguistic, cultural, and doctrinal anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

Date
2003
Type
Book
Source
Stephen D. Ricks
LDS
Hearsay
Direct
Reference

Stephen D. Ricks, “Anachronisms, alleged,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 55-57

Scribe/Publisher
Deseret Book
People
Stephen D. Ricks
Audience
Reading Public
PDF
Transcription

Anachronisms, alleged Since the earliest days of the Church, critics of the Book of Mormon have pointed to certain alleged anachronisms—claims that ideas, words, events, persons and objects are historically out of place—as evidence that the Book of Mormon is false. Those who have a conviction that the Book of Mormon is an authentic and true record have little difficulty finding sound arguments to dismiss any presumed anachronism that might undermine the text’s credibility. This point can be illustrated by evaluating examples from three categories of alleged anachronisms: linguistic, cultural, and doctrinal.

Alleged linguistic anachronisms

Allegations of linguistic anachronisms concern words in the Book of Mormon. For example, the book of Jacob ends with the French word for farewell, “adieu” (Jacob 7:27). It would be impossible for French to have been in the original language of the text as the boo of Jacob dates between 544 to 420 B.C., and French did not even exist until A.D. 700. Further, critics charge that the use in the Book of Mormon of terms with Greek origin such as “Christ” (e.g., 2 Ne. 25:26) and “Alpha and Omega” (e.g., 3 Ne. 9:18) are anachronistic, for if the Nephites had really been Hebrews they would never have used such terms.

These criticisms may best be answered by understanding the character of typical nineteenth-century English. The earliest forms of English, like the oldest forms of French, did not even develop until the first millennium A.D. By the nineteenth century A.D., however, English was a rich, flexible, nuanced, and highly expressive language that had borrowed words from many other languages. Thus, in the case of “adieu,” Joseph Smith must have felt the sense of the original Nephite term could be expressed quite nicely by the use of this French word, a word used commonly by English-speaking Americans of Joseph Smith’s day. Indeed, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “adieu” as “an elliptical form of speech, for I commend you to God” and also “farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends.”

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). The use of “Alpha and Omega” as a rendering of a Hebrew (or other Afro-Asiatic) phrase reflects the expressiveness of English as a language spoken predominately by those with the religious vocabulary of Christians. In fact, “Alpha and Omega” is found in the book of Revelation to render the Hebrew of Isaiah’s words “first” and “last” (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12); in Revelation 22:13 it is a self-designation of Christ. See Alpha and Omega.

Thus in translating the original language of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith used the English words and terms of his day that would be best understood by his contemporaries, without concern that some might appear anachronistic. His major concern in translating was understanding. God does the same, for he “speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Ne. 31:3; cf. D&C 1:24). Other alleged linguistic anachronisms, such as the use of the words “synagogue,” “baptism,” and the name “Timothy,” can be similarly explained using the same principles. See Names in the Book of Mormon; Synagogue(s).

Alleged cultural anachronisms

Critics of the Book of Mormon have noted certain cultural features of the Book of Mormon that supposedly do not square with its presumed setting in Mesoamerica. For example, according to these critics, the Book of Mormon describes ancient Americans involved in massive armed conflicts, with armies of hundreds of thousands engaged in single battles, but they claim ancient Americans were sedentary and peaceful. Other critics claim that the use of the word “hose” is a striking anachronism, because no horses existed in Mesoamerica until the time of Columbus.

The cultural criticism of the Book of Mormon because of the presumed peacefulness of ancient Mesoamericans is becoming more and more difficult to maintain in light of more recent research. According to one scholar, “It has been held that the Maya pursued a peaceful existence. Form the beginning of the Classical Era, however, the trading of victors on captives is represented and such scenes carved in stone increase in number and complexity with the passage of time” (Lothrop, 107; qtd. in Sorenson, 132). Professor John Sorenson has also identified many fortified Mesoamerican sites indicative of a warring people that date to Book of Mormon times. As for the second claim, there have been several archaeological discoveries of what appears to be pre-Columbian horses in the New World (Sorenson, 295-96; Welch 98-100). It is also possible that the Book of Mormon authors, with their ancient Near Eastern background, may have described some ANIMALS (possibly of the deer family) as horses, though their taxonomy varies markedly from horses known today (Welch, 98), much the same as the Greeks, who when they first visited the Nile in Egypt, became acquainted with a large animal that they described as “hippopotamus,” meaning “river horse.” Similar arguments can be used to dismiss other alleged cultural anachronisms such as the mention in the Book of Mormon of “silk,” “barley,” and “steel.” See Agriculture in the Book of Mormon; Archaeology; Linen; Metals of the Book of Mormon; Silk.

Alleged doctrinal anachronisms

An example of a presumed anachronism in doctrine is the early reference to the unpardonable sin (e.g., Jacob 7:19; Alma 39:6; cf. 2 Ne. 31:14). Some see this as problematic because the doctrine of an unpardonable sin is not taught in the Bible until New Testament times, well after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem (e.g., Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10; cf. Heb. 10:26; 1 Jn. 5:16-17). In response ,it should be noted that the unpardonable sin is defined as “deny[ing] the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you” (Alma 39:6). It is evident from the text of the Book of Mormon that the descendants of Lehi knew of and received the witness of the Holy Ghost (e.g., 1 Ne. 10:17-19, 22; 2 Ne. 31:13, 18; Jacob 6;8; Alma 9:21). They thus have knowledge sufficient to commit such a sin and to be warned against committing it.

Citations in Mormonr Qnas
Copyright © B. H. Roberts Foundation
The B. H. Roberts Foundation is not owned by, operated by, or affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.