New LIDAR Survey Uncovers Major Mesoamerican Structures

ALFONSOBOUCHOT/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS (CC BY-SA)

LIDAR keeps bringing us new and interesting discoveries. This time, in the digital unearthing of over 32,000 square miles of land in Mexico. 

Scientists have uncovered nearly 500 Mesoamerican monuments in southern Mexico using an airborne laser mapping technology called lidar. Dating as far back as 3000 years ago, the structures—still buried beneath vegetation—include huge artificial plateaus that may have been used for ceremonial gatherings and other religious events.

Also:

The analysis resulted in the discovery of 478 formal complexes—many new to science—the team reports today in Nature Human Behaviour. Several of these monuments had the same layout as Aguada Fénix, including an even more ancient Olmec site in San Lorenzo. Researchers continue to argue over whether the Olmec, which predate the Maya, are more of a mother or sister culture to them. The researchers estimate these Olmec and Maya complexes were built between 1100 and 400 B.C.E., and would have been used for ceremonial gatherings.

Long discredited now is the argument that there aren't nearly enough structures in Mesoamerica to serve as evidence that a large and complex population once occupied the area as possible evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims.

More Evidence for Pre-Nephite/Pre-Jaredite American Inhabitants

One of the more aggravating objections to the Book of Mormon that I see from time to time on various online forums is this idea that all original inhabitants of the Americas came from a single source: the Bering Strait. It usually takes the form of a statement like, "there's no evidence that anyone but Asians are the predecessors of Native Americans found when Columbus arrived..." or some such nonsense.

I've already written about this recently, and also earlier, and see also Steve Smoot's excellent DNA and the Book of Mormon article. But here comes yet another bit of scientific discovery that blows this limited and antiquated Beringian population group idea out of the water.

Brazilian rock shelter proves humans inhabited Americas 23,000 years ago

"The “First Americans” are usually believed to be East Asian migrants that crossed the Bering Straits 15,000 years ago, members of the Clovis Culture (a reference to their stone tool technology). A small number of researchers have suggested that an earlier group of migrants, from Europe’s Solutrean culture, arrived in North America a couple of millennia before these Clovis settlers, a hypothesis which was hotly disputed by academics... 

It now appears that researchers favoring both the Clovis and Solutrean models have got it all wrong and supporting the claim of “First Americans” should be given to a mysterious population living in Brazil over 23,000 years ago."

While there is still some reasonable doubt about the Solutrean (European) arrival and whether it was before or after the Beringian/Clovis culture, it's hard to find a way to refute the findings of the Brazilian site.

"Scientists utilized three separate dating methods to investigate samples of charcoal, sediment, and the sloth bones. The revealed dates securely place people at the Santa Elina site well over 23,120 years ago. Humans groups abandoned the site after a short period, but later groups utilized the rock shelter again between 10,120 and 2,000 years ago... 

The new dates from Santa Elina further erode the consensus understanding that the first modern humans reached the Americas by walking across the land bridge between Northeast Asia and North America 15,000 years ago. The rock shelter is thousands of miles from the proposed entry site.  

Not only is Santa Elina located far from even the earliest Clovis sites, it is also over 1,000 miles from the Brazilian coast in a heavily forested region. This seems like an unlikely first point of entry as it is logical to suspect that humans lived initially along the coastline before moving into the Brazilian interior by 23,000 years ago. This would seem to offer further support to claims that modern humans were in Brazil long before even this early period."

Again, what people thought they "knew" for certain is being upended by new findings. This is why when people say to me that there is no proof (such a sloppy word) or evidence (better) that there were Nephites or Lamanites or Jaredites or any connection whatsoever between ancient America and the Middle East, first I tell them all the new stuff we're finding followed by "and wait until you see what else the Lord will eventually reveal."

By faith and also by reason. That is how truth is discovered.

New Evidence of Book of Mormon Historical Accuracy

One of the most persistent "faith-destroying rumors" (as I like to call them) about Book of Mormon archaeology is that we ought to have found much more "proof" (the real word is evidence) of the historicity of the Book of Mormon through archaeological discoveries by now.

Given that I am a big proponent of the well-established theory of Mesoamerica being the core of Book of Mormon civilizations and events, I'm sharing some insights from a recent article by National Geographic regarding the literally groundbreaking technology of LiDAR in the core of Classic Mayan civilization (ca. 250-900 AD), which is being used to revolutionize archaeological discoveries in our time. I'm going to do so in the context of the accusations made against Book of Mormon historicity claims.



CLAIM: "The scale of civilization as narrated in the Book of Mormon has never been discovered in Mesoamerica."

NEW EVIDENCE: “'Most people had been comfortable with population estimates of around 5 million,' said Estrada-Belli, who directs a multi-disciplinary archaeological project at Holmul, Guatemala. 'With this new data it’s no longer unreasonable to think that there were 10 to 15 million people there—including many living in low-lying, swampy areas that many of us had thought uninhabitable.'”

CLAIM: "No evidence has ever been found that Mayan civilizations as a candidate for Book of Mormon civilizations ever built transportation or urban infrastructure at the scale claimed by the Book of Mormon."

NEW EVIDENCE: "Virtually all the Mayan cities were connected by causeways wide enough to suggest that they were heavily trafficked and used for trade and other forms of regional interaction. These highways were elevated to allow easy passage even during rainy seasons. In a part of the world where there is usually too much or too little precipitation, the flow of water was meticulously planned and controlled via canals, dikes, and reservoirs."

CLAIM: "Nothing has ever been found in Mesoamerica to correlate with the idea that Book of Mormon civilizations had massive, decades-long wars involving defensive earthworks and large cities."

NEW EVIDENCE: "Among the most surprising findings was the ubiquity of defensive walls, ramparts, terraces, and fortresses. 'Warfare wasn’t only happening toward the end of the civilization,' said Garrison. 'It was large-scale and systematic, and it endured over many years.'"

To put all of this in even more perspective, this initial LiDAR survey covered a mere 800 square miles of the Maya Biosphere Reserve in the Petén region of Guatemala. Imagine what else we don't know and how much bigger the population and infrastructure scale could be with further LiDAR studies!

Further, what we see under the forest canopy is what remains of the 250-900 A.D. civilizations that build on top of prior structures. That puts what we know right at the end of the peak of Nephite/Lamanite interactions. The evidence we're looking for to cover the period of the first Nephite arrival (591-589 B.C.) and, further back, the Jaredite arrival (approximately the 3rd Millennium B.C.), is subject to discovery only after we've spent decades digging through the layers of the Classic and Post-Classic Maya remnants, if it can even be found at all after being looted/repurposed/decomposed.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  those who claim archaeology will never uncover evidences of Book of Mormon historicity are simply not patient enough and/or don't have an understanding of how archaeology is a long-haul activity that often involves more uncertainty and questions the more discoveries are made. It is simply naive to think that one can sally forth into the jungles, dig a little bit, and find direct, clear, irrefutable proof of the existence of Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites. Too many confounding factors are possible through the complexities of time, the elements, and intermingling civilizations for that to be a possibility. Instead, we must take our time and carefully sift through data to find correlations that amount to a preponderance of evidence. We're far too early in our nascent understanding of Mesoamerican archaeology for that to have borne the kind of fruit that anti-Book of Mormon critics suppose should have been found by now.

BookofMormonCentral.org soon to launch!

This is very, very exciting.

Book of Mormon Central is on the verge of publishing a new online study tool. The aim of the tool is to provide a comprehensive, one-stop shop for Book of Mormon research and scholarship.

According to the Book of Mormon apologetics blog Studio et Quoque Fide, here are the things the archive and tools are going to include:

1. With the cooperation of other research institutions and publishers (such as Interpreter, the Religious Studies Center, BYU Studies, etc.), we are building what we hope will become a comprehensive online research archive featuring all things published on the Book of Mormon. Close to 1000 items are already in the archive, and more are being added all the time. Everything in the archive will be available for free.
2. Using a Wiki platform, we are planning to put together Study Notes on various Book of Mormon topics. These will be encyclopedia-like entries, and the Study Notes wiki will, essentially be a free online Book of Mormon encyclopedia.
3. An interactive online edition of the Book of Mormon text, with annotations from the Study Notes and archived materials will be available, with links back in the archive and the full Study Note entries. This will provide Book of Mormon readers with direct and instant access to the latest and most relevant information in historical, geographical, textual, cultural, theological, and linguistic analysis, as well charts, graphs, and other visuals.
4. To help all of the great research on the Book of Mormon circulate more widely, we plan to frequently publish short, popular 1–3 page summaries focused on one specific insight into the Book of Mormon. These will be called KnoWhys, because they will not only aim to provide something new to know, but also explain why it is significant. Ultimately, it is about knowing why the Book of Mormon deserves out time, effort, and devotion. We hope to have several of these coming out each week. These will be widely shared and promoted on social media using custom memes and videos to help further get the main point across in a simple, popular format.

Of particular interest to me is the KnoWhy section, coming in January 2016, which as of this writing seems to be a section devoted to expanding on themes of the Book of Mormon that correlate with ancient literature and biblical and Book of Mormon hermeneutics and exegesis.

And, those who have a recollection of the early days of my blog will recognize one Book of Mormon Central contributor, a certain Stephen O. Smoot! Before serving his mission, he contributed a great many erudite and well-written articles here on American Testament under a different profile. I'm glad to see that he's part of Book of Mormon Central, as well as many other scholarly endeavors, and I'm looking forward to quoting and linking to his articles there!

BookofMormonCentral.org

Pssst. Want to see some golden plates?

Here are three. No, they're not THE Golden Plates, but they're as close to their description as has ever been found.

They're called the Pyrgi Tablets and were found in Italy in 1964. Written in Etruscan and Phonecian, these plates are very similar in size, description, and script to the ones Joseph Smith translated. They are thought to date from around 500 B.C., which is only about 100 years later than when Lehi left Jerusalem for the Americas carrying records engraved similarly on brass plates. The gold plates from which came the Book of Mormon weren't created until after Lehi's arrival in the Americas, but it's rather safe to assume that Book of Mormon gold plates were quite similar to these.

It's fascinating to compare the form and makeup of the characters on these plates with the ones copied to paper and shown to by Martin Harris Professor Charles Anthon at Columbia University. There are many similarities. One could be persuaded that perhaps Phonecian and Etruscan were related to or even a form of the Reformed Egyptian found on the gold plates.

See also: Golden Plates by William Hamblin

Why the debate about Book of Mormon DNA is FAR from over

Today, during an unrelated Google search session I was doing, I came across an article from the blog of Discover Magazine. The article summarizes (rather lengthily) the research done up to 2010 regarding the tracking of ancient Jewish populations to modern-day locations after the Diaspora.

What caught my eye was the headline: "Genetics & the Jews (it's still complicated)"  That certainly sums up the argument of LDS apologists. They continue to defend the Book of Mormon origins in spite of some of our detractors.  Those seeking to disprove a divine origin for the Book of Mormon insist that because no clear genetic link exists between modern bloodlines of native American populations and any tribe of the Jews, then no link ever existed.

To further expose the logical fallacy that flawed thesis presents, here are some of the concluding statements from the Discover Magazine blog post.

So what’s the bottom line here? I think the bottom line is that there isn’t a bottom line, and that we need to proceed on a case by case basis. I’ve focused on Middle Eastern Jews in this post, but let’s put the spotlight on the Indian Jews, the Bene Israel of Bombay, who were separated from the Jewish Diaspora, and the Cochin Jews, who were more well integrated... 

What likely occurred in India was that generations of admixture between Jews and non-Jews resulted in the elision of differences between the two groups, despite the persistence of a cultural distinction. 

I suspect that it has to do with the relative lack of a special relationship between Jews and the host culture in India as opposed to the world of Islam or Christendom. In India Jews were just another group, not subject to particular exclusion or marginalization. Non-Jews could, and did, move into the Indian Jewish community, while this was taboo in the Islamic or Christian world. A similar process seems to have occurred to the Jews of Kaifeng, who intermarried and eventually lost their identity because of their greater eventual isolation from the Jewish Diaspora in comparison to the Indian Jews, especially those of Cochin.

What anti-Mormon DNA "researchers" often cast aside is the additional complexity of tracking more than just the tribe of Judah. In our case we're tracking mostly the tribe of Manasseh through the house of Joseph of Egypt (his wife was Egyptian, so his offspring were half-Egyptian, and no record exists of all the combinations that likely happened thereafter). We're also tracking a superimposition of the unknown genetic makeup of the people that likely already existed in the Americas upon Lehi's arrival, plus their interbreeding with the even more ancient Jaredite (likely Olmec) population, also of unknown genetic makeup. Now throw in the mind-bogglingly large principles of chance where millions of genes are mixed with mutations, haplotypes, dominant and recessive genes, etc.

As the gene network visualization graph (snapshot above) clearly shows, just for one species of the genus mus (musculus, the common house mouse), the Foxa2 gene that dictates the cell maturation and endocrine system development of this tiny creature exhibits a dizzying array of complexity. There are just way too many variables for anyone to state that the science is settled. I expect it will remain that way for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Extrapolating that level of complexity to the scale of tracking ancient migrations of unknown population sizes of homo sapiens for whom we have no original genetic samples, it appears, as we've stated in the past...that not enough genetic information exists in populations today to make conclusions about populations thousands of years ago. Nobody has the evidence or tools to make a definitive claim one way or the other as to the genetic linkage between modern native American populations and migrations of Jews from the Holy Land.

Again, the Book of Mormon, being a spiritual record, as is the Bible (if one only looks at it objectively as true science demands) challenges us to accept its provenance based on faith and not on external evidences alone.

But that is what God intended for both books. As confirmed by Matthew 16:17...

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

...the act of believing by faith is much more sufficient to create strong conversion that leads one to salvation than is the act of believing by sight alone.

The Popol Vuh: The Creation of Man

This is part two (past due...see part one) of a series of posts about the Popol Vuh, which is an oral transmittal of an ancient Mayan codex given by Quiché noblemen in the 16th century. In this post, I am using a readily available translation online for copying and pasting, and to which I will add my own notes. It is similar enough to the translation I was making from the summarized version I obtained in Guatemala and saves me from having to translate from Spanish to English. I will still use the topical dividers (via the blog post title) of my Guatemalan version as a convenience in pointing out similarities between Biblical Old World and Indigenous New World accounts of creation.

For this reason another attempt had to be made to create and make men by the Creator, the Maker, and the Forefathers. "Let us try again! Already dawn draws near:3 Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us! What shall we do to be invoked, in order to be remembered on earth? We have already tried with our first creations, our first creatures; but we could not make them praise and venerate us. 4 So, then, let us try to make obedient, respectful beings who will nourish and sustain us." Thus they spoke.

This "starting over" can be paralleled with dispensations of the Gospel. When men were wicked, they were destroyed and God started over. It is interesting that this concept is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Popol Vuh, along with other pre-Columbian American texts.

Then was the creation and the formation. Of earth, of mud, they made [man's] flesh. But they saw that it was not good. It melted away, it was soft, did not move, had no strength, it fell down, it was limp, it could not move its head, its face fell to one side, its sight was blurred, 5 it could not look behind. At first it spoke, but had no mind. Quickly it soaked in the water and could not stand.

And the Creator and the Maker said: 6 "Let us try again because our creatures will not be able to walk nor multiply. Let us consider this," they said.

Then they broke up and destroyed their work and their creation. And they said: "What shall we do to perfect it, in order that our worshipers, our invokers, will be successful?"

Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon is reminiscent of the maker noted above in that the Lord of the vineyard makes several trials at having a successful crop and harvest. The allegorical devices are very similar to each other.

Thus they spoke when they conferred again: "Let us say again to Xpiyacoc, Xmucané, Hunahpú-Vuch, Hunahpú-Utiú: 'Cast your lot again. Try to create again.'" In this manner the Creator and the Maker spoke to Xpiyacoc and Xmucané. Then they spoke to those soothsayers, the Grandmother of the day, the Grandmother of the Dawn, 7 as they were called by the Creator and the Maker, and whose names were Xpiyacoc and Xmucané.

And said Huracán, Tepeu, and Gucumatz when they spoke to the soothsayer, to the Maker, who are the diviners: "You must work together and find the means so that man, whom we shall make, man, whom we are going to make, will nourish and sustain us, invoke and remember us.

"Enter, then, into council, grandmother, grandfather, our grandmother, our grandfather, Xpiyacoc, Xmucané, make light, make dawn. have us invoked, have us adored, have us remembered by created man, by made man, by mortal man. 8 Thus be it done.

This mention of a "council" hearkens back to the council in heaven mentioned by Abraham in the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith translated from Egyptian papyri.

Before you read the next few paragraphs, read Doctrine & Covenants 121:32, Job 38: 7, Alma 13: 3, Abraham 3: 22, Abraham 4: 26, Abraham 5: 2.

"Let your nature be known, Hunahpú-Vuch, Hunahpú-Utiú, twice-mother, twice-father, 9 Nim-Ac, 10 Nima-Tziís, 11 the master of emeralds, the worker in jewels, the sculptor, the carver, the maker of beautiful plates, the maker of green gourds, the master of resin, the master Toltecat, 12 grandmother of the sun, grandmother of dawn, as you will be called by our works and our creatures.

"Cast the lot with your grains of corn and tzité. 13 Do it thus 14 and we shall know if we are to make, or carve his mouth and eyes out of wood." Thus the diviners were told.

They went down at once to make their divination, and cast their lots with the corn and the tzité. "Fate! Creature!" 15 said an old woman and an old man. And this old man was the one who cast the lots with Tzité, the one called Xpiyacoc. 16 And the old woman was the diviner, the maker, called Chiracán Xmucané. 17

Beginning the divination, they said: "Get together, grasp each other! Speak, that we may hear." They said, "Say if it is well that the wood be got together and that it be carved by the Creator and the Maker, and if this [man of wood] is he who must nourish and sustain us when there is light when it is day!

"Thou, corn; thou, tzité; thou, fate; thou, creature; get together, take each other," they said to the corn, to the tzité, to fate, to the creature. "Come to sacrifice here, Heart of Heaven; do not punish Tepeu and Gucumatz!" 18 Then they talked and spoke the truth: "Your figures of wood shall come out well; they shall speak and talk on earth."

"So may it be," they answered when they spoke.

And instantly the figures were made of wood. They looked like men, talked like men, and populated the surface of the earth.

Now we read about how the Mayan gods became displeased with the outcome of their work. Compare the passages below with Genesis 6 and Genesis 7, and with Moses 8: 18, 26.

They existed and multiplied; they had daughters, they had sons, these wooden figures; but they did not have souls, nor minds, they did not remember their Creator, their Maker; they walked on all fours, aimlessly.

They no longer remembered the Heart of Heaven and therefore they fell out of favor. It was merely a trial, an attempt at man. At first they spoke, but their face was without expression; their feet and hands had no strength; they had no blood, nor substance, 19 nor moisture, nor flesh; their cheeks were dry, their feet and hands were dry, and their flesh was yellow.

Therefore, they no longer thought of their Creator nor their Maker, nor of those who made them and cared for them. 20

These were the first men who existed in great numbers on the face of the earth.

Immediately the wooden figures were annihilated, destroyed, broken up, and killed.

A flood was brought about by the Heart of Heaven; a great flood was formed which fell on the heads of the wooden creatures.

Of tzité the flesh of man was made, but when woman was fashioned by the Creator and the Maker, her flesh was made of rushes. 1 These were the materials the Creator and the Maker wanted to use in making them.

But those that they had made, that they had created, did not think, did not speak with their Creator, their Maker. And for this reason they were killed, they were deluged. A heavy resin fell from the sky. The one called Xecotcovach came and gouged out their eyes; Camalotz came and cut off their heads; Cotzbalam came and devoured their flesh. Tucumbalam 2 came, too, and broke and mangled their bones and their nerves, and ground and crumbled their bones. 3

This was to punish them because they had not thought of their mother, nor their father, the Heart of Heaven, called Huracán. And for this reason the face of the earth was darkened and a black rain began to fall, by day and by night.

Then came the small animals and the large animals, and sticks and stones struck their faces. And all began to speak: their earthen jars, 4 their griddles, 5 their plates, their pots, their grinding stones, 6 all rose up and struck their faces.

"You have done us much harm; you ate us, and now we shall kill you," said their dogs and birds of the barnyard. 7

And the grinding stones said: "We were tormented by you; every day, every day, at night, at dawn, all the time our faces went holi, holi, huqui, huqui, because of you. 8 This was the tribute we paid you. But now that you are no longer men, you shall feel our strength. We shall grind and tear your flesh to pieces," said their grinding stones.

And then their dogs spoke and said: "Why did you give us nothing to eat? You scarcely looked at us, but you chased us and threw us out. You always had a stick 9 ready to strike us while you were eating.

"Thus it was that you treated us. You did not speak to us. Perhaps we shall not kill you now; but why did you not look ahead, why did you not think about yourselves? Now we shall destroy you, now you shall feel the teeth of our mouths; we shall devour you," said the dogs, and then, they destroyed their faces. 10

And at the same time, their griddles and pots spoke: "Pain and suffering you have caused us. Our mouths and our faces were blackened with soot; we were always put on the fire and you burned us as though we felt no pain. Now you shall feel it, we shall burn you," said their pots, and they all destroyed their [the wooden men's] faces. The stones of the hearth, 11 which were heaped together, hurled themselves straight from the fire against their heads causing them pain. 12

The desperate ones [the men of wood] ran as quickly as they could; they wanted to climb to the tops of the houses. And the houses fell down and threw them to the ground; they wanted to climb to the treetops, and the trees cast them far away; they wanted to enter the caverns, and the caverns repelled them. 13

So was the ruin of the men who had been created and formed, the men made to be destroyed and annihilated; the mouths and faces of all of them were mangled.

And it is said that their descendants are the monkeys which now live in the forests; 14 these are all that remain of them because their flesh was made only of wood by the Creator and the Maker.

And therefore the monkey looks like man, and is an example of a generation of men which were created and made but were only wooden figures.

Just as in the Genesis chapters of the Bible, we find that the gods mentioned by the Maya were similarly displeased with the disastrous outcome of their creations.

The tradition of a great flood is found in nearly every ancient culture. A Babylonian account, that of Gilgamesh, closely resembles the record in the Bible, but the biblical account differs from all others, including the Popol Vuh, in its religious value and the purpose of it. The scriptural account teaches that the flood was sent to cleanse the earth because of the wickedness of the people. Noah and his family were saved because they were righteous.

That a great deal of the Popol Vuh parallels quite closely with the scriptural version of the Great Flood is either a bizarre coincidence, or it shows that the people of the Americas who preceded the Spanish Conquest had in their possession, at some point, a knowledge of the Genesis account and made an effort to retell it. In retelling it, and through hundreds, even thousands of years of political and religious upheavals, they likely altered it in certain ways, yet had somehow managed to keep the general theme of that oral tradition intact.

It's All Greek To Me! On Greek Words and Names in the Book of Mormon

A standard criticism by anti-Mormons against the Book of Mormon is in regards to the presence of Greek names and words in the Book of Mormon. From Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry to Richard Packham of the Ex-Mormon Foundation, the critics make merry over the fact that there are Greek names such as Timothy and Lanchoneus in the Book of Mormon as well as Greek words like "Church", "Baptism", "Christ" and "Bible". Obviously these are blunders for the ignorant knave Joseph Smith, they inform us, and clear evidence against the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

But are Greek names and words in the Book of Mormon really hazardous to the claims of the Book of Mormon? Let us explore this criticism a little further. As shall be clear by the end of this post, there is no problem with the presence of Greek names and words in the Book of Mormon.

Timothy & Lanchoneus

Hugh Nibley put this silly accusation to bed ages ago.

The occurrence of the names Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon is strictly in order, however odd it may seem at first glance. 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 interests (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks), swarmed throughout the Near East. Lehi's people...could not have avoided considerable contact with these people in Egypt and especially in Sidon, which Greek poets even in that day were celebrating as the great world center of trade. It is interesting to note in passing that Timothy is an Ionian name, since the Greeks in Palestine were Ionians (hence the Hebrew name for Greeks: "Sons of Javanim"), and—since "Lachoneus" means "a Laconian"—that the oldest Greek traders were Laconians, who had colonies in Cyprus (BM Akish) and of course traded with Palestine.[1]

[R]emember...that in Lehi's day Palestine was swarming with Greeks, important Greeks. Remember, it was Egyptian territory [prior to being seized by Babylon] at that time and Egyptian culture. The Egyptian army, Necho's army, was almost entirely Greek mercenaries. We have inscriptions from that very time up the Nile at Aswan-inscriptions from the mercenaries of the Egyptian army, and they're all in Greek. So Greek was very common, and especially the name Timotheus.[2]

Thus, as explained by Nibley, there was a known Greek influence and presence in the Levant by the time of Lehi. Thus, there is nothing out of order with the presence of Greek names in the Book of Mormon.

Greek Words

But what of the presence of Greek words in the Book of Mormon? Richard Packham quotes Joseph Smith in the Time and Seasons to demonstrate that the presence of Greek words in the Book of Mormon are a problem for the book's claimed historicity:

There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself.[3]

However, this is fallacious reasoning for several reasons. The first and most important thing we must remember is that the Book of Mormon is a translation. Thus, as such, it would be foolish to think that the Greco-English words that appear in the text such as "Christ", "Church", "Bible", etc. were on the original plates. As the Prophet continues to note, the underlying script of the Book of Mormon was "reformed Egyptian" (Mormon 9:32). Accordingly, the script of the Book of Mormon seems to be the usage of Egyptian characters to express and write Hebrew words. Thus, there wasn't any Greek words on the plates but in the translation of the plates. This is an important difference. As Irish biblical scholar Robert Boylan explains,

The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation. Therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which it was translated is not the language from which, according to its very own claims, it was translated. The fact that Joseph Smith used words with a Greek etymology (e.g., “Christ”) does not mean that the word “Christ” was on the very plates of the Book of Mormon. For someone with a long career in languages, Packham really should know better.[4]

This applies as well for the other words in Greek that the critics point to as "problems" for the Book of Mormon. Take the popular target "Christ". The Greek Christos is nothing more or less than the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Mashiach. Both are nouns meaning "anointed one" and both carry the connotation of the two English synonyms Christ and Messiah.[5]

"Bible" is from the Greek Biblios, or books, is equivalent to the Hebrew Cepher.

"Church", from the Greek Ekklesia, is comparable to the Hebrew Qahal. Alfred Edersheim explaines:

Nor would the term 'Church' sound strange in Jewish ears. The same Greek word [ecclesia], as the equivalent of the Hebrew Qahal, 'convocation,' 'the called,' occurs in the Septuagint rendering of the Old Testament, and in 'the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach' (Ecclus, 24.2) and was apparently in familiar use at the time.[6]

"Alpha and Omega" is another Greek phrase used in the Book of Mormon that the critics criticize. However, the ever erudite Robert Boylan has once again offered a succinct rebuttal to this accusation:

“Alpha and Omega” in the Book of Mormon is an accepted English expression and we may view it as the best way of conveying the meaning of a certain Nephite expression to English readers. The purpose of a translation is to transmit meanings, not words. “Alpha and Omega” makes more sense and is more recognizable to English readers than the Hebraic equilivant “Alepha and Taw.”[7]

By now it should be obvious the point I am trying to make. The presence of Greek names and words in the Book of Mormon are not harmful to its claims of authenticity. The attestation of Greek influence in Lehi's day has been documented. Further, because the Book of Mormon is a translation, the presence of these Greco-English words can be attributed to Joseph Smith best approximating the words in reformed Egyptian to words that he understood and was familiar with. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant of how translations work, desperate anti-Mormons, or both.

Notes:

[1]: Hugh Nibley, Collected Works of Hugh Nible volume 5, Lehi in the Deseret/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, eds. John W. Welch, Darrell L. Matthew, Stephen R. Callister (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 31.

[2]: Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993), 1:431. Both of these citations can also be found on the FAIR wiki. Link here. LDS Irish biblical scholar Robert Boylan reminds us that the name "Timothy’s Hebrew equilivant is Heqar’el, meaning God-fearer. However, for transaltion purposes and style, the Prophet used “Timothy” because of the familiarity of the name in our culture." See Robert Boylan, "Linguistics and Mormonism", found online here.

[3]: "Correspondence", Times and Seasons, May 15, 1943, vol. 4, no, 13, 194.

[4]: Boylan, "Linguistics and Mormonism".

[5]: For a general discussion, see the entry under "Messiah" in Dennis L. Largey, ed., The Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 536

[6]: Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publ., Peabody, Mass., 1993, pp. 531-532. Found online here.

[7]: Boylan, "Linguistics and Mormonism".

The Popol Vuh: The Creation of the World

This post begins a series of "Popol Vuh for Really Busy People Who Just Want to Get to the Point". :) It is based on various notes I took and that were written for me by a native son of Guatemala while I was on my mission. The book I have is a typical "Cliff's Notes" Spanish version of the larger Popol Vuh which was taught in public secondary schools, but it is conveniently divided into summarized themes that are remarkably conducive to discussions of the Book of Mormon, the Holy Bible, and the tie-ins the Popol Vuh has with each.

For an excellent, annotated, in-depth English translation of the entire Popol Vuh text, you can't get any better than Dennis Tedlock's "Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings". Tedlock spent time living among Quiché and Mam peoples of Western and Northwestern Guatemala and was able to assimilate into their culture enough to understand exactly what this book represented to them. For Mayans, the Popol Vuh, literally "The Book of the Council" is just as sacred and important as the Holy Bible as far as a means of transmitting their religion, their culture, and their history. For people studying the Book of Mormon, it is riddled with striking parallels, evidences, and footprints of doctrines of Judeo-Christianity that, some LDS students of the text believe, transferred to extant Mayan peoples, in classic diffusionist manner, with the arrival of the Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites.

Let's begin with the out-of-print Spanish to English summarized translation of "Popol Vuh: versión transparente" by Franco Sandoval. In reading this, do not try too hard to make exacting, one-for-one comparisons between verses and doctrinal particulars of the Bible vs. the Popol Vuh vs. the Book of Mormon. Rather, note that the overall motif is more strikingly similar to Judeo-Christian creationism than it is different.

The Beginning

Here we recount the ancient histories of the Quiché nation. We will show what happened to this people when it began. This will be the narration of things obvious and things hidden.

We will reveal the work of the Maker and the Modeler¹, the work of Grandfather and of Grandmother, whose names were Ixpiyacoc and Ixmucané, also called great-grandfather and great-grandmother.

This we write under Christianity and with their manner of writing²; because the Popol Vuh, our book where life used to be seen, no longer exists, no longer can be seen. In it there was the story of how the heaven and the earth were formed, of how this was divided into four parts, of how a cord was extended to measure the heaven and the earth, to the four corners, in the manner established by the Maker and the Modeler, the mother and the father of life, of everything created: breath, thought, light of the children, happiness of the people, the earth the lakes, the sea.

The Creation of the World

All was calm, in suspense, all was silent. All was immobile, noiseless; the expanse of heaven was empty.

There were no men or animals; there were no birds, fish, crabs, forests, rocks, nor streams. Only the heaven and the sea existed.

There was nothing on foot, that made noise. There was only the peaceful, tranquil sea. There was silence and darkness, like a night that never ended.

The Maker and the Modeler, Tepeu³ and Gucumatz⁴, were on the water, dressed with blue-green feathers, in the midst of the dim light. They were great wise ones, they were the manifestation of the Heart of the Heavens and of the Earth.

Tepeu and Gucumatz consulted, meditated; unified their words and thoughts. They began the creation of the trees and the reeds. Out of the darkness of the night they also began the creation of man. They spoke of life and light and agreed that someone ought to produce their food, which gave them sustenance.

"Separate water from space, and let the earth come forth! Let there be light, that it might awaken in the sky and on the earth. There will be no glory or honor in that which we have created until there is the human creature, the creature endowed with reason."

This is what Tepeu and Gucumatz said. And their word made the earth come forth.

"Earth!", they said, and the earth surged forth like a cloud, like from a dust cloud. And the mountains came forth, as if they were crabs on the water.

There was great power, a magical power, that made the mountains and valleys burst forth.

Gucumatz was full of joy. "Our work, our creation will now be finished!", he said.

After the mountains and valleys, they formed the rivers, that they traveled in between the hills.

Later, they decided to create the guardians of the forests, the animals great and small: the deer, the bird, the lion, the tiger, the snake. They placed them to live in the wilderness and to each they gave its dwelling:

"You, deer, will live and sleep in the gullies and in the stream-beds; you will walk among the grass and the herbs; in the forest you will multiply; you will walk on four legs."

And that was what was said and done. There were also distributed homes for the birds great and small:

"Above the forests, in the heights of the reeds you will live and make your nests. Above the branches of the trees you will dart and preen."

Upon finishing the creation of the birds and the animals, it was said to them:

"Call out, that every on have his own noise, that everyone uses its own manner of speech." That was what they said to the birds, to the deer, to the lions, to the tigers, to the serpents.

Tepeu and Gucumatz commanded them to say their names and give them praise.

"Invoke the Heart of Heaven and the Earth, the Maker, the Modeler. Speak, invoke them," it was said to them.

But they couldn't talk and only cawed, clucked, screeched, each one of a different manner. When Tepeu and Gucumatz saw that it wasn't possible for them to talk, they said to themselves:

"It has not been possible that the animals say our name, that of their makers and modelers; this is not good. We will make other obedient beings and they will invoke us. Their meat shall be for food, for chewing. This will be their purpose."

The animals tried again but they could not make their screeches invoke the makers and modelers; only screaming and shouting was heard, confusion. Their lot remained definitive: to be food one for another.

Next: The Creation of Man

Notes:

1. I have preferred to use Tedlock's "Maker and Modeler" to Sandoval's "Creator and Shaper". Maker and Modeler are closer to the original intent of the original Quiché. They also convey the parallelism found in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural (see KJV Gen. 1: 26, Gen. 3: 22)

2. One should not hastily conclude that the rest of the Popol Vuh oral tradition is corrupt because of their mention of Christianity and using the Latin alphabet to transmit it. There is more evidence in the Popol Vuh itself and in the history of its transmittal to rebut this conclusion than there is evidence to conclude they were somehow coerced or felt obligated to change the narrative to suit the theology of the Christian missionaries. To this very day, Quiché Day Keepers worship Christian figures separately from Mayan figures, each method of worship having its own particular theology and system of rituals, as a "failsafe" of sorts in the event that one system is incomplete and the other is more complete.

3. Tepeu means "king" or "sovereign," from the Náhuatl Tepeuh, tepeuani. The Maya form is ah tepehual. Ah is also an Egyptian prefix for "king" or "pharaoh", such as in Ahkenaten, Ahman Ra, etc.

4. Gucumatz, a serpent covered with green feathers, from the Quiché word guc (kuk in Maya), "green feathers," particularly those of the quetzal, and cumatz, serpent; it is the Quiché version of Kukulcán, the Maya name for Quetzalcoatl, the Toltec king, conqueror, culture hero, and god of Yucatán during the period of the Maya New Empire. The profound Mexican influence in the religion of the Quiché is reflected in this Creator-couple who continue to be invoked throughout the book until the divinity took the bodily form of Tohil, who in Part III is specifically identified with Quetzalcoatl.

And it Came to Pass that the Phrase "And it Came to Pass" was Discovered to be a Hebraism

Christopher Miller on his lurid website "Mormonism Disproved" argues that the high occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence that "Joseph Smith was the single author of the Book of Mormon, that it was not translated, but created from his very creative imagination." And what exactly is the evidence that Mr. Miller provides for this claim? Why, nothing less than the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" occurs at a much higher frequency in the Book of Mormon than in the current King James Bible. After all, according to our sleuth, "the extensive use of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon across all of the books" clearly points to single authorship.

The final nail in the coffin, according to Miller, is the fact that the word "exceedingly" also occurs more often in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible. But it doesn't stop there. The thoroughly unbiblical phrase "in other words" is also evidence to Miller that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

I must admit that I was rather amused at not only the sheer desperation of these charges, but also at the fact that Mr. Miller betrays absolutely no knowledge of the fact that the phrase "and it came to pass" is actually a good Hebraism. Rather than belabor the point, I will simply be lazy and quote Professor Donald W. Parry on this matter:

The expression and it came to pass is the translation of a Hebrew expression used frequently in scriptural histories and chronologies and far less frequently in poetry, prophe-cies, or direct speech. Although in its Hebrew form the expression is found in the Hebrew Bible some 1,200 times, it was translated in the King James Version as "and it came to pass" only about 727 times. The King James translators probably found the expression redundant and cumbersome, which would explain why they often translated it as "and it became," "and it was," or "and." On a number of occasions they simply ignored the expression altogether.

Given the Semitic background of the Book of Mormon and the fact that it contains histories and chronologies comparable to those of the Old Testament, it is not surprising that and it came to pass is a characteristic feature of the book. Novelist and humorist Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of and it came to pass from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet.

Similar to Old Testament usage, the phrase and it came to pass is rarely found in Book of Mormon psalms, lamentations, proverbs, blessings, curses, prayers, speeches, and dialogues where the first-person pronoun (Ior we) is used. The expression is obviously missing from the Psalm of Nephi (2 Nephi 4:16–35); the speeches of such personalities as King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles found in the Book of Mormon.[1]

But that is not all, Parry has noted elsewhere that "this expression is commonly mentioned in Hebrew grammars. See, for example, Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), 107."[2]

In the December 1992 issue of the Ensign, Professor Parry observed the following:

Mark Twain once joked that if Joseph Smith had left out the many instances of “and it came to pass” from the Book of Mormon, the book would have been only a pamphlet. (Roughing It, Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Co., 1901, p. 133.) There are, however, some very good reasons behind the usage of the phrase—reasons that further attest the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The English translation of the Hebrew word wayehi (often used to connect two ideas or events), “and it came to pass,” appears some 727 times in the King James Version of the Old Testament. The expression is rarely found in Hebrew poetic, literary, or prophetic writings. Most often, it appears in the Old Testament narratives, such as the books by Moses recounting the history of the children of Israel.

As in the Old Testament, the expression in the Book of Mormon (where it appears some 1,404 times) occurs in the narrative selections and is clearly missing in the more literary parts, such as the psalm of Nephi (see 2 Ne. 4:20–25); the direct speeches of King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma, and Jesus Christ; and the several epistles.

But why does the phrase “and it came to pass” appear in the Book of Mormon so much more often, page for page, than it does in the Old Testament? The answer is twofold. First, the Book of Mormon contains much more narrative, chapter for chapter, than the Bible. Second, but equally important, the translators of the King James Version did not always render wayehi as “and it came to pass.” Instead, they were at liberty to draw from a multitude of similar expressions like “and it happened,” “and … became,” or “and … was.”

Wayehi is found about 1,204 times in the Hebrew Bible, but it was translated only 727 times as “and it came to pass” in the King James Version. Joseph Smith did not introduce such variety into the translation of the Book of Mormon. He retained the precision of “and it came to pass,” which better performs the transitional function of the Hebrew word.

The Prophet Joseph Smith may not have used the phrase at all—or at least not consistently—in the Book of Mormon had he created that record. The discriminating use of the Hebraic phrase in the Book of Mormon is further evidence that the record is what it says it is—a translation from a language (reformed Egyptian) with ties to the Hebrew language. (See Morm. 9:32–33.)[3]

Thus, far from being evidence of single authorship of the Book of Mormon, as the quixotic Mr. Miller implies, the continual occurrence of the phrase "and it came to pass" in the Book of Mormon is evidence of the book's ancient authenticity. It is likewise evidence for a Semitic primacy of the language of the Book of Mormon. 

But what about Miller's accusations about the use of "exceedingly" and "in other words" in the Book of Mormon? To me, this is much ado about nothing. I ask; so what if Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon into modern English, used these words and phrases? Surely one cannot fault him for using modern lingual expressions in translating an ancient language into a modern one. Such is nothing but sheer desperation to get anything on Joseph Smith to make him look bad. 

However, the fun does not stop there. Miller mocks the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon and the repetitive nature of the text. However, had Miller bothered to consult any Hebrew grammar, he would understand that lengthiness and repetitiveness is a common feature in biblical Hebrew. As Brian D. Stubbs explains:

Book of Mormon language frequently contains lengthy structures of rather awkward English. Some may consider these to be instances of poor grammar, weakness in writing (Ether 12:23—26), or the literary ineptness of a fraudulent author; however, I see them as potentially significant support for a translation from a Near Eastern language in an ancient American setting. Many of these lengths of awkward English parallel Semitic (and Egyptian) patterns, particularly the circumstantial or hal-clause.[4]

Jeff Lindsay, in summarizing Stubbs' arguments, notes:

He [Brian Stubbs] responds to Edward Ashment's attack on the Book of Mormon which claims the long, awkward sentences found in so many Book of Mormon verses are much different than the short, concise sentences found in the Old Testament, supposedly showing that the Book of Mormon was not derived from Hebrew. Stubbs shows that the short sentences alleged to be characteristic of Biblical Hebrew may be characteristic of the King James translation of the Old Testament, but are not characteristic of the actual Hebrew. In fact, numerous sentence structures in the Book of Mormon show much more in common with genuine Hebraic sentences than with the English of the King James Bible or with the English of Joseph Smith's day.[5]

Elsewhere, Lindsay observes to "complain about the Book of Mormon being too Hebraic, if you will, but the wordiness of the text is most reasonably interpreted as indirect evidence of authenticity rather than evidence of fraud."[6]

One final note. Miller, in mocking Nephi's comments in 1 Nephi 10:4, asks rhetorically if "any Hebrew speaking person in that time did not know what a Messiah was" and "if any biblical author would find it necessary to explain that to his audience." Contra Miller, who boasts that "common sense" demands that the answer is no, the answer, in light of biblical evidence, is in fact a resounding YES.

Consider, if you will, the fact that the Hebrew word for Messiah, "mashiach" or literally "anointed one", is never explicitly used for a title of Jehovah in the Old Testament, but instead has been applied to Israelite royalty (1 Sam. 24:6; 26:11; 2 Sam. 19:21; 22:51; Ps. 18:50; 132:17), Aaronic High Priests (Lev. 4:5) and even the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) and you begin to understand why Nephi had to clarify with his readers who exactly he was speaking of when he mentioned the "Messiah, or, in other words, A Savior of the World" (1 Ne. 10:4). He wanted his readers to be sure that he was speaking of the Savior Jesus Christ, not others who have been held the label "Messiah".[7] Miller, it seems, can have his "common sense" all he wants, but he should not for one moment presume that such is evidence for his claim.

Thus, if our intrepid Don Quixote insists that the presence of "and it came to pass" and the lengthiness of the Book of Mormon is evidence of fraud, he will first have to explain this contrary evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Notes:

[1]: Donald W. Parry, "Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon", in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch, eds., Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 163-64.

[2]: Ibid, note 11.

[3]: Donald W. Parry, "I Have A Question: Why is the phrase "and it came to pass" so prevalent in the Book of Mormon?", Ensign, December 1992, 29.

[4]: Brian D. Stubbs, "A Lengthier Treatment on Length", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 82

[5]: Jeff Lindsay, "Numerous Hebraic Language Structures", available online here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#hebraic

[6]: Jeff Lindsay, "Too Wordy to be True?", available online at: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/wordy.shtml

[7]: See the entry under "Messiah" in Dennis L. Largey, ed., The Book of Mormon Reference Companion (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 536

Simile Oaths/Curses in the Book of Mormon

In these videos, I discuss the significance of Simile Oaths/Curses in the Book of Mormon and other ancient Near Eastern documents. 

Enjoy!

Part 1

Part 2