When the Mulekites landed in the Land of Promise, they would have pitched their tents, as the Lehi Colony did. Later, some type of permanent buildings would have been constructed
The “City of Mulek” is mentioned only twice in scripture, both in Alma, describing the Lamanites capturing the city (Alma 51:26) and the Nephite recapture of it (Alma 52:26). This city of Mulek was on the east borders by the seashore, along with the cities of Nephihah, Lehi, Morianton Omner and Gid (Alma 51:26).
This, and the scripture in Alma 22, have led most Book of Mormon scholars and theorists to believe that the Mulekites first landed along the east seashore in the Land Northward, then later move into the Land Southward along the east seashore, then eventually move across the Land of Promise to settle in the area of Zarahemla, where Mosiah found them.
This erroneous concept is based upon two the misunderstanding of two scriptures. First, is the one mentioned above in Alma chapter 51. Because this city had the name of Mulek, these theorists believe it was first settled by a man named Mulek. While this might be true, it was not the Mulek from Jerusalem that was Zedekiah’s only surviving son. There are two reasons for this, the first being listed in this post and having several explanations:
1. That Mulek that came from Jerusalem would have been a baby or child, depending on how long it took those who whisked him out of Jerusalem before the Babylonians sacked the city took to build a ship and sail to the Land of Promise. He would not have settled anything. Those who brought him would have settled the area mentoned in Omni 1:16.
2. Even if those who brought Mulek to the Land of Promise named their city after Mulek because he was a son of the former king of Judah, not all who brought him to this land would have been Jews, and may not have acknowledged such a birthright.
3. The scripture statement: “Now it was the custom of the people of Nephi to call their lands, and their cities, and their villages, yea, even all their small villages, after the name of him who first possessed them.” (Alma 8:7), has led many scholars’ and theorists’ to believe that all cities and lands were named after its founder’ however, that is obviously not true. While some people named a city or land after its founder, many did not, such as Jerusalem, Bountiful, Manti, Ani-Anti, City of Desolation, City by the Sea, City of Jordan, and the City of Judea. While this might have been a custom of the Nephites, there is no indication it was the custom of the Mulekites before joining with the Nephites, since they brought no records, lost their language, and all knowledge of their heritage over a four hundred year period.
4. Lands were often called after its principal city even though other cities were located within the borders of the land. This was an ancient Jewish and Middle East custom, as found in the Mesha or Moabite stela of the ninth century B.C., which provides ample evidence for the interchange of city and land. The reason that lands were named after their principal cities was that some cities controlled other nearby sites. In the account of the assignment of lands to the tribes under Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages." In some cases, a known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns, or villages under its dominion as in "Heshbon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), "Ashdod, with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47), and "the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land" (Joshua 8:1).
The problem lies in scholars and theorists trying to claim something existed when the scriptures do not indicate such. The city of Mulek is only mentioned in 67 B.C., more than 500 years after the Mulekites reached the Land of Promise. To try and link this city with the Mulekites is a stretch not warranted by other scripture.
The second reason, dealing with the Mulekite landing site, will be covered in the next post.
(See the next post, “The Mulekites—Who Were They? Part VII” showing contrary to most Book of Mormon scholars beliefs, where the Mulekites actually landed and where they lived in the Land of Promise)
No comments:
Post a Comment