The Mulekite Homeland in the Land of Promise – Part XI

Continued from the previous post regarding the Mulekite homeland, where they landed, where they settled, and who they were, and how numerous theorists have treated this subject erroneously; and continuing below with Sorenson’s remarks about co-mingling of the Jaredites and Mulekites/Nephites, some of which rationale is found in names as discussed in the last part in the previous post.
     As stated in the earlier post, Hugh Nibley leaves out perhaps the worst of the lot in Gadianton, which even he claims is not a Jaredite name, saying that this omission “is not to be wondered at.” But why not? If one is going to use an argument that those who dissented from the Nephites were Mulekites with Jaredite names, then the fact must hold true throughout, which it does not, thus it can only be considered a coincidence, or some other rationale must exist such as:

All languages and all names would have come from a common language, the language of Noah

• All names came from a common language—the Adamic language spoken before the confounding of languages, which B. H. Roberts (p118) claims the Jaredites spoke. Thus, there would be some similarities in Jaredite, West Semitic, and later, Hebrew since they all originated in the same area at the same time. As an example, the Nephite Amalickiah (-iah is definitely a Palestinian name) was the brother to Ammoron, which Mesoamerican theorists claim was a Jaredite name, but later development has shown was an old West Semitic name ending in the numation of -on.
• The Jaredites had the history of the earth from the creation down to the time of the tower of Babel. Thus, they would have been familiar with many of the same names that later Hebrews, Jews, and Nephites knew from these same records.
• The ending -iah and -ihah were peculiar to Palestinian names in Lehi’s time, but not in other times (Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, (collected works vol.6), Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 1988, p244). Thus, the adding of -hah, such as Moronihah, is Palestinian and consistent with the understanding of the Nephites when they left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. This suggests little, if any, separation in old West Semitic language and Jaredite names in such cases as Orihah and Mahah, name endings the Hebrews also used.
• The most common Egyptian combination is mor- and mr- which show up in Jaredite names such as Moron and Coriantumr, again suggesting a connection from a beginning old West Semitic from which most of these names descend and were known to the Jaredites before 2000 B.C., as well as to the Palestinians, Arabs, and Egyptians, during Lehi’s time (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p243).

“Kheri Hor [of the] God Servant chief of Ammon King of the Gods, is the full title of the Egyptian Kherihor before he became king in Thebes—he had been the chief servant of (Hem) Amon

• As mentioned earlier, the name Kherihor is Egyptian (Roger Matthews, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, Routledge, New York, 2003, pp 11-13). He was the father of Paanchi and set himself up as a rival of Pharoah while his son actually claimed the throne 400 years before Lehi left Jerusalem (T. E. Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, University Press of Liverpool UK, 1922, p86). It was Kherihor who first introduced priestcraft into Egypt around 1000 BC, which subjugated Pharoah’s power (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p245). Compare this to Paanchi and Korihor in the Book of Mormon who are involved in similar plots of intrigue and priestcraft. The Egyptian name Kherihor can also be compared to the Book of Mormon name Korihor to show that this name is not suggestive of being strictly Jaredite in origin, or that it was given to a Mulekite because of its Jaredite connection as Mesoamerican Theorists claim. Lehi gave his middle two sons, Sam and Nephi, Egyptian names, and this practice was not unknown among the Nephites.
• It was popular in 600 B.C. to name children after Egyptian hero kings of the past (D. W. Thomas, Palestine Explorer Quarterly, 1950, p8). Thus, the name Aha, which a Nephite general as found in 81 BC when Zoram, the Nephite chief captain (General) named his two sons Lehi and Aha (Alma 16:5), two names of great men of history, and all three spiritual men who knew to inquire of Alma where to find their brethren who had been taken by the Lamanites. In addition, the name Aha, which means “warrior,” was borne by the first hero king of Egypt. 
    In fact, the King-list on the Palermo stone (inscribed on both sides of a black basalt slab and dates from the Fifth Dynasty and records names of the kings of the 1^st to 5^th  Dynasties—the first three dynasties consist almost exclusively of events that give the years their names) mentions several pre-dynastic kings as well as the name of Narmer, Menes, and Aha. The King-list at Abydos in the temple of Seti I also includes the name of Menes. But is Menes also Narmer, or is Menes, Aha, that is, a second, or nisw bity name, for either of these kings? Was Menes a name at all, or was Menes a title? (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, p246).
    In addition, Nibley (pp27-30) claims that both Korihor and Zeezrom are Egyptian hero names. As are compounds for names, such as Bin, Zik, Ra, and Andi, which are Egyptian.

• The most common name in Egypt in Lehi’s time was Amon, Ammon, Amun. This name was used to compound other names, such as Aminidab, Aminadi, Amminihu, and Amnor. The name Gidianhi was Egyptian (Thoth is my life), and the name Helaman, spelled with an “L” is Semitic, but Heraman, spelled with an “R” is Egyptian, since there was no “L” in the language of Egypt. While Ammon is so obviously an Egyptian-Hittite name, it shows up in the Book of Mormon as a name for a direct descendant (a righteous man) of the Mulekite Zarahemla (Mosiah 7:3,13).
• The Mulekites and Nephites both knew of the Jaredite record in which early names were included. While some of these names were of men mighty in valor (Coriantumr), men of leadership and accomplishment (Morianton), men of high valor and integrity (Nehor), spiritual men (Shiblon), or men who led rebellions (Corihor), others are unknown as to their stature or accomplishments. In all cases, they may well have been names after which any Mulekite or Nephite would have named their son—a name to emulate and achieve similar greatness for after all, each of these names (except Shiblon) were either kings or sons of kings in the Jaredite record. 
    Compare this manner of naming to Helaman giving his two sons the names of Lehi and Nephi: Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I have done that when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good (Helaman 5:6). It should also be kept in mind that Israelites, then as now, had not the slightest aversion to giving their children non-Jewish names, even when those names had a pagan background (J. A. Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934, pp 49-55).
• There were names in the Jaredite record that could not strictly be called Jaredite, for they were also found in the Genesis record and were old West Semitic, Hebrew or Jewish names such as: Seth (Ether 1:10), Aaron (Ether 1:15), Levi (Ether 1:20), and Heth (Ether 1:16). In addition, Emer and Omer (Ether 1:29-30) are similar to the Genesis name Eber (from which it is claimed the word Hebrew originated). And Jared, of course, was an old Genesis name—the father of Enoch (Genesis 5:19). There were several other Jaredite names found in the Old Testament.
    Consequently, it cannot be assumed that certain names were Jaredite, simply because they are found in the Jaredite record, for many of these names are either the same or similar to names found in the Old Testament from which almost all names would have originated.

In addition, the name Teancum, a Nephite, is so similar to the Jaredite name Coriantum and Morianton, that one either has to say that Teancum was a good Mulekite with a Jaredite name (which offsets the entire argument of Jaredite names being Mulekite dissenters) or that it is a Nephite name, which again defeats the entire argument of Jaredite-influenced names. Nor should it be ignored that many names were old West Semitic names, such as Jether or Ether.
• Hebrew genealogies in which “the nomenclature is largely un- Hebraic, with peculiar antique formations in -an and -on, and in some cases of particular Arabian origin” (James A. Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017, p47).
In fact, the loss of the ending -on is quite common in Palestinian place-names (William F. Albright, The Vocalization of Egyptian Syllabic Orthography, Kraus Reprint, 1966, p12).
    Thus the Book of Mormon place names of Emron, Heshlon, Jashon, Ammaron, Moron, etc.—Emron was a Nephite name who fought in Mormon’s army (Moroni 9:2); Heshlon was a Jaredite place name (Ether 13:28); Jashon was a place name in the Land Northward near the land where Ammaron deposited the records (Mormon 2:16-17); Ammaron, the brother of Amos, was a Nephite name of the prophet before Mormon (4 Nephi 1:47); and Moron was an individual in Ether’s genealogy (Ether 1:17) and also a place name (Ether 7:5)—have preserved this archaic -on, which is indicative of a quaint conservatism among Lehi’s people, and especially of ties with the desert people.
    Consequently, such names as Moron, Shiblon, Aaron, Morianton are basically Hebrew words that do not show up in contemporary names, but were definitely Hebrew, or desert names, in their origin. Obviously, this means they cannot be attributed to just Jaredite origin in the Book of Mormon times, but instead could have been as easily Nephite or Mulekite names preserving the formation -on as Montgomery and Allbright testify.
(See the following post, “The Mulekite Homeland in the Land of Promise – Part XII,” regarding the Mulekite homeland, where the Mulekites landed, where they settled, and who they were, as well as how numerous theorists have treated this subject erroneously; and continuing with Hugh Nibley who leaves out perhaps the worst of the lot in Gadianton, which even he claims is not a Jaredite name, saying that this omission “is not to be wondered at.”)