Jaredites and their Language – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the language of the Jaredites and its possible connection to the language of the Hebrews.    The late Joseph Greenberg of Stanford University was the first to claim that hundreds of seemingly unrelated languages were actually just dialects of several huge language “super-families.” Then, in the late 1980s Russian-born linguist Vitaly V. Shevoroshkin, teaching at the University of Michigan, began propagating the idea that there was proof of a single primordial language from which all others derived. “Ultimately, all languages, with perhaps some little exceptions, are related,” he was quoted as saying, which became known as the Nostratic school of thought.
    Recently a major study analyzing more than 500 languages was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supporting the theory. The study, co-authored by Dr. Quentin Atkinson, of Auckland University, and Dr. Mark Pagel, of the University of Reading, U.K., concludes that there is evidence for a single origin of language.

The guru of Edenics and self-declared “founder, chief researcher and editor of the idea” is Isaac E.lchanan Mozeson (above), an American-born lecturer on literature and Judaica who moved to Israel in 2010. “It was a little birdie that whispered the Edenic concept into my ear back in 1978,” Mozeson wrote, describing a time when he was a doctoral student of literature at New York University (he never completed the degree). “I was stuck with a boring linguistics requirement. One day our professor was demonstrating the genius of what he said was the Indo-European root for the generic bird word sper. Suddenly my mind harkened back to my second-grade Hebrew class when I first learned a similar generic word for bird—tsipor.”
    This chance event set off in Mozeson a train of thought that would consume him for the next 35 years as he came to believe—and set out to prove—that Hebrew was the root of all languages. The lack of approval from the linguistics establishment did not dampen Mozeson’s enthusiasm for his theory, and he went on to publish two books on the subject. The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Roots of English (1989), a 300-page book with some 20,000 English-Hebrew linked words, and The Origin of Speeches (2006), in which words from multiple languages are connected to Hebrew.
    Mozeson has stated that “New evidences forces new perceptions,” and that Edenics data is very new, it’s the tip of a large iceberg. He has put out three CDs and a website, a blog, and all sorts of social media. The whole operation runs on a shoe-string budget, some part of which Mozeson claims is provided by co-founder of Skype and Kazaa, Kevin Bermeister, who is listed as a supporter of Edenics—which is the tracing of English and world words to the Semitic Mother Tongue attested in Biblical Hebrew.
    Ironically, for a man who seeks to revolutionize our understanding of language, Mozeson himself has a severe speech impediment. This incurred during a five-day coma and massive organ failure that he suffered following severe heat stroke in 1996. Yet Mozeson has succeeded in gathering a cadre of dozens of like-minded individuals, from all over the world and from a wide variety of languages and traditions. All of them believe in the Edenics theory and spend time searching out and publicizing what they believe are the Hebrew roots of their native tongues. Overall he and his team claim to have mapped out the Hebrew roots to more than 60,000 words from dozens of languages.

According to Mozeson, founder of “Edenics: Origins of Languages,” during a lengthy interview in his apartment building in Jerusalem, “There are hundreds of English words which have almost the exact same structure as similar-meaning Hebrew words. For instance: Eye: Ayin; Twin: Towem; Tour: Toor; Fruit: Feyrot; Evil: Avel; Cry: Kria; Lick: Likek; Piece: Pasis; Scale: Shakel; Earth: Aretz; Wine: Yayin; Direction: Derech. While it’s easy to assume the Hebrew words I just mentioned were inspired by modern English, they’re not. All these Hebrew words are found in the Bible, which means they are over 2,500 years old—far older than English.”
    Whether or not Edenics is accurate or just another view of a simple concept, we should keep in mind that the Lord told us through Moses that: “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech,” (Genesis 11:1), and also, “And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language” (Genesis 11:60). Obviously, there was a time in the beginning where everyone had just one language, and the Lord confounded that language (Genesis 11:7) and Moses tells us: the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).

As Mozeson states: “Since there are some 20 consonants in the alphabet, the chances that two words, with similar meaning, in two completely unrelated languages, would have the same three consonants are 1 in 8,000 (20 x 20 x 20). Still not convinced? Try these—Source: Shoresh; Idea: Yidea; Agony: Yagon; Mystery: Mistor; Regular: Regel; Dye: Dio; Ashamed: Asham; Boor: Baar; Yell: Yilel; Mirror: Marah.”
    “Edenics,” he added, “works via word roots that are found over and over again in different words with similar connotations. For instance, the Hebrew word for counting is MoNeh. The Mem-Nun (M-N) sub-root found here makes up a large word family, from every language, dealing with a MouNts. This includes MaMoN: MoNey; HaMoN: MaNy; the Hebrew word MiNyan and the English words MiNus; DiMiNish; NuMber and MiNi.”
    Mozeson also expands his theory into other languages. “The Hebrew word DeRech (way/road),” he said, “with its DR root, is also found in DaRoga (Russian), DeRecho (Spanish), DuRch (German) and DoRo (Japanese). By the way, if you take the DR root of DeRech and reverse its order you get the English word RoaD. Can you see the Hebrew root from ShoMeR (guardian) in the Japanese word SaMuRai (the emperor’s royal guard)?”
    According to Hezy Laing, a journalist in Jerusalem, “Finding relationships between similarly sounding words seems to be too easy for Mozeson. The real challenge for him is proving connectivity between words that at first glance appear to be completely different. He does this via some common phonetic techniques, despite his lack of official linguistic training.”

 

Moseson contines with his Edenics: “Metathesis is the action of letters changing places within words,” he explained. “This happens either because it’s easier for the speaker to pronounce the word in its altered form or due to some type of dyslexia. Examples of metathesis within English would include such words as: CaSe and SaCK, CaVity and VaCuum, FoRM and MoRPH, FoLio and LeaF; RoTary and TiRe and more. Metathesis between Edenic and English include such words as: BeSeeCH: BaCHeSh; DaRK: KeDaR; DeGRee: DaRGa. A second common phonetic technique is nasalization, whereby an N is added to a word. Applied to Edenics we get Datz (jump with joy): Dantz (Dance); AtiQ (old): AntiQue; Shoak (leg): Shank.
(See the next post, “Jaredites and their Language-Part III,” for more information on the language of the Jaredites and its possible connection to the language of the Hebrews)

Jaredites and their Language – Part I

The record Moroni abridged that briefly recorded the history of the Jaredite people, lastly inscribed by the prophet Ether, the 29^th generation from Jared (Ether 1:6), who led his people out of Babylonia at the time the Lord confounded the language (Ether 1:33), along with his brother, a man Joseph Smith said was named Mahonri Moriancumer, though the Jaredite record leaves him nameless. From the Book of Mormon we learn that Jared, his brother, and their friends (making up 22 separate families, or a total of 24 overall) were present at or near the Tower of Babel.    When the language of the people was confounded, Jared asked his brother to ask God not to confound their own language, that of their friends, and that of their immediate families (Ether 1:35).

The Jaredites lived in the near vicinity of the Tower of Babel in the area today known as Mesopotamia, near where Noah settled after leaving the Ark

After being granted to have their language not confounded, they asked to be led to where the Lord would have them go, hoping that it would be a choice land. They were led through the wilderness, across many waters, to the "great sea which divides the lands," and then dwelt in tents at the seashore for four years. They named this place where they had (temporarily) settled Moriancumer Ether 2:13).
    Now in Babylonia, archaeologists have discovered remains of many towers, called Ziggurats (Akkadian word ziqqurat from zaqaru, “to be high”). They are of varying sizes from 65-feet on a side to over 295-feet on a side. More than 30 have been discovered and they had names like "Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth," "Temple that Links Heaven and Earth," "Temple of the Exalted Mountain," "Temple of Exalted Splendor," and "Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven." These names, of course, reflect the scriptural record which states: “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (Genesis 11:4).
    It is believed that the earliest such tower was located at Eridu, which according to Sumerian tradition was the first city. Some are multi-layered, up to 16 layers, with each being built over the remains of earlier structures. The building materials were sun dried bricks in the centers and burnt bricks and bitumen mortar for the outer layers.
    Briefly, sun-dried is where the clay or much brick is dried by the heat of the sun, while burnt bricks are made by burning in the kilns, the latter is obviously stronger and more useful. On the other hand, bitumen is the binding material present in today’s asphalt. Sometimes it is also known as mineral tar. Bitumen is produced by partial distillation of crude petroleum, and used in such things today as road construction, dam groutings and linings, jetties and dyke protection, swimming pools and waterproofing.
    While these ziggurat constructions are the most famous and many have proposed that one of them is the Tower of Babel, others claim the oldest ziggurats that have been found to date is Teppe Sialk which is located to the northwest. The main ziggurat there has been dated to 2900 B.C.

"A family tree of Indo-European languages suggests they began to spread and split about 9,000 years ago. The finding hints that farmers in what is now Turkey drove the language boom—and no later by Siberian horsemen, as some linguists reckon. Around this time, farming techniques began to spread out of Anatolia (Turkey) and across Europe and Asia, archaeological evidence shows." (John Whitfield, "Language tree rooted in Turkey"). This shows that all of the early history of Genesis 1-11 was located in the Ararat area and the northern most portion of Mesopotamia which would be the location of the tower of Babel.
    In regard to the confusion of languages, the Scriptural Hebrew account is so brief that it is difficult to discern the full story. Many have implied that immediately the workers on the tower were unable to understand each other and quit work in confusion. When in fact, there is no mention of the time factor and the method of "confounding" the languages is also not discussed. The word used in the ancient Hebrew is “balal,” which means “to anoint.” It also means to “mingle, mix, confuse, and confound.” In Genesis, as used, it has the meaning of “confuse” or “confound,” both words are used in the various translations, as well as “mixed,” “mingled.” Thus, the basic meaning of the Hebrew word "balal" is to overflow and then by implication, to mix.
    Josephus writes of this: “"When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon."
    Possibly then the manner in which the Lord initiated the confusion, "let us go down,” was via a natural catastrophe. If this was the major contributing factor or just a part of the whole of the "confounding" is difficult to understand. Josephus’ account would seem to indicate a two-part event, with first a blowing over of the tower and then a giving of a "peculiar language" to each person.
    Today many that supposedly speak the same language have radically different understandings of the same words. We also know that men readily make changes in their languages and often in very short time spans as slang crop up and then the slang is more permanently incorporated into the language. Therefore, many like to propose the concept that languages are continuously "evolving" and that over time humans evolved their languages from much simpler languages, grunts and gestures. However some recent studies have indicated that there are no simple "evolving" languages on the present earth and some languages are actually with time being simplified

Luigi Lura Cavalli-Sforza (left), a population geneticist, formerly at Stanford, states: "All contemporary modern humans use very complex languages. There are no "primitive" languages: the 5,000 or more spoken today are equally flexible and expressive, and their grammar and syntax are sometimes richer and more precise than that of the more widespread like English and Spanish, which have undergone some simplification over the centuries." ("Genes, People and Languages,” North Pointe Press, New York, 2000, p59)
    Therefore as has been proposed by some students, our present languages are not necessarily evolving, but actually doing the opposite and becoming more simplified and less exacting.
    We may actually have many more words to speak and write with, but we may in fact have languages today that are less capable. Indications such as these have caused some linguists to conclude that the nature of the language situation is almost "insoluble." The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, are evidence that for millenniums the believers were very exacting in maintaining the "sacred" records! We can probably assume that the non-believers were not necessarily so exacting.
    According to Herman Daily’s Accuracy in Genesis, “Could it be that the ones in Babel having strayed from the faith no longer felt it imperative to hold to the "sacredness" of the original language and teachings given of the Lord, and this was a part of the causation of the "confounding"? Or how about the possibility that the only scholars and scribes of the area, and their records, were destroyed when the tower collapsed?” (Editor Herman Daily, Accuracy in Genesis: New Perspectives Affirming the Scriptural Creation Record, H. Daily, 2010, p69)
(See the next post, “Jaredites and their Language-Part II,” for more information on the language of the Jaredites and its possible connection to the language of the Hebrews)

The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part VI

Continuing from the previous post regarding the attempt by scholars to include other people into the Land of Promise when no other people are mentioned by any of the writers or even such a presence is inferred. Whether or not there were, we may never know, but to manufacture the existence of others is neither scholarly nor of any value to our understanding the scriptural record or the Jaredite or Nephite experiences in the Land of Promise.

Ancient Mesopotamia—Jaredites, the Tower of Babylon, and Abraham were all from this small area, and not far from Israel and Jerusalem

Lastly, it might be suggested regarding Jaredite names, that the Jaredites were from Mesopotamia. Abraham was from there also, and only a few miles from the area of the Tower from which Jared, his brother and friends originated. Abraham also spent some time in Heran, traveling through all of Mesopotamia to get there, before migrating into the area of Palestine. Through Abraham’s lineage came Lehi, who lived all his days at Jerusalem, as did Nephi and his older brothers before leaving around 600 B.C. Lehi was also connected to the Arab lands and Egypt, as the names of his sons suggest, and his close relationship to Ishmael and his family, as well as his probable occupation. This means that the Jaredites and the Nephites came from the same basic area after the Flood, knew the same basic names, and developed them into variants of their own through the generations—but having and retaining their similarities. In addition, Lehi knew Egyptian. Thus, the names as they appear in the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be isolated into groups as linguists always insist on doing, since they originated in the same area, and from people who originally spoke the same language, though many years apart.
    As stated previously, according to Nibley, “all the dissenters were Mulekites,” which of course is unknown other than Coriantumr. Yet, Nibley adds, “Every one of these men has a Mulekite background and is a leader of a subversive movement against the Nephite state and religion.” He also wrote: “The tradition of a very Jaredite pattern of behavior and dissent against Nephite rule by men of Mulekite background bearing Jaredite names makes the case pretty clear.’ However, it is not clear at all. Because a person has a name that is found in the Jaredite record does not make him a Mulekite—and to assume he was a Mulekite because he had a Jaredite name and, therefore, a dissenter and an enemy of the Nephites is disingenuous. So to is the belief that the Mulekites were the King-Men, and the Amlicites, Amalekites and other groups that fought the Nephites in the B.C. period.   

    Every group and people throughout history have had their share of despotic leaders, renegades, apostates, subversives and trouble-makers. The Jaredites had theirs—with wars that covered some 1500 years and resulting in their annihilation; the Mulekites had theirs—with their “many wars and serious contentions” in just 300 years; and the Nephites had theirs—covering some 1000 years and ending in their total annihilation. The first despot was Adam’s son, Cain, and there has been no end to his ilk for the past 6,000 years of history. The Nephites needed no one else to bring about the wars and destruction and complete ruin of their nation—they had themselves and that was all it took.
    The point is, that all the dissenters were not Mulekites, and not all Mulekites were dissenters. There was no Jaredite influence among the Mulekites. Until 92 B.C., neither the people of Zarahemla nor the Nephites had any idea of any names, culture, background or Jaredite society other than the bones found around 130 B.C., and the person of Coriantumr who we have no indication that he was able to communicate with the Mulekites in the nine months he lived among them, obviously in ill health, despondent, and slowly dying.
    Nibley also talks about Egyptian culture, Asiatic culture, Iranian mythology, the Mongols, the Estruscans, Arab tribes, among others, in order to describe the Jaredite culture, wars, and migrations, stating that “But east to west, from the Baltic to the Pacific, from the Gobi Desert and the border of Korea to the Lower Danube and the Carpathian Mountains, a single way of life has prevailed since the dawn of history, conditioned by a remarkably uniform type of terrain,” which he claims is the history of the steppe culture of Asia.

The Steppes in Asia are the  largest temperate grassland in the world; however, as can be seen, the Steppes where Nibley would place the Jaredites is some distance north and east of Mesopotamia where the Jaredites were located near the Tower of Babel

As factual as that might be, we need to keep in mind that whatever the history of the Asian Steppes, it has nothing to do with the Jaredites, who, according to the record, were never in the steppes area. We need to keep in mind that the steppes area, or Central Asia, is a region of Asia from the Caspian Sea in the west to central China in the east, and from southern Russia in the north to northern Pakistan in the south. It is also sometimes known as Middle Asia or Inner Asia, and is within the scope of the wider Eurasian continent. Stated differently, Mesopotamia is not in the area of central Asia, nor in the steppes area.
    In fact, the steppes begin in the west at about 55º longitude and extends eastward to about 115º longitude, and between about 38º and 55º north latitudes. Whereas, Mesopotamia runs far to the west, between about 42º and 48º longitude, and between about 30º and 36º north latitude.
    We are told that Noah came down out of the Ark and, along with his family, settled in the area of Mesopotamia and surrounding area to the south and west, which is about the only area we have any knowledge of where the children of Noah immediately settled— that is, with Shem and Japheth, we can trace their original settlement within Mesopotamia and westward. For the covenant lineage, the settlement was in Mesopotamia from Noah through Abraham, who was in Ur of the Chaldees, which is the eastern most part of Mesopotamia (which he later moved to Haran, in the western most part of Mesopotamia). The point is, the Jaredites were never in central Asia, along the steppes area, nor north of Mesopotamia, so all of Nibley’s references to central Asian culture, wars, and migrations have nothing to do with Jared, his brother and their friends who came “from the great tower at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people” Ether 1:33).
    The point of all of this not only to show that the manufacturing of additional people in the Land of Promise is neither acceptable nor beneficial to the studying the scriptural record nor of understanding either the Mulekites, Nephites or Lamanites, it is also of little benefit to write about connections that have no support within the pages of the Book of Mormon. To say that all the dissenters to the Nephites were of the Mulekite lineage that joined them is neither supportable by the scriptural record nor by common sense—as the Nephites later prove, there were enough dissenters within their own ranks to equate to all the negatives that took place and led to their final downfall.
    We certainly do not need to manufacture any.

The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part V

Continuing from the previous posts regarding the attempt by scholars to include other people into the Land of Promise when no other people are mentioned by any of the writers or is even such a presence inferred. Whether or not there were, we may never know, but to manufacture the existence of others is neither scholarly nor of any value to our understanding the scriptural record or the Jaredite or Nephite experiences in the Land of Promise. 
    Continuing also with the names Hugh Nibley claimed were Jaredite, when in reality there is no record that they were in most cases or that they belonged to the Mulekites or their descendants:

AMLICI

Amlici was the leader of the Amlicites, who sought to make Amlici king over the Nephites, was defeated by a vote of the people, joined with Lamanites and fought against Alma and the Nephites, with Alma killing Amlici. The name Amlici may contain the root mlk for king and would be Hebrew in origin, and likely was influenced by the dropping of the “h” based upon Assyrian inscriptions, making Amli western Palestine.

KISHKUMEN

Kiskumen was the name of a Nephite who killed Pahoran, tried to kill Helaman, and made a pact with Gaddianton to place him on the throne. Kiskumen’s band of robbers later became known as the Gaddianton Robbers. While the name Akish is definitely Jaredite, the name Kishon is an Arabic name in western Palestine. Kumen was an Egyptian name. The man Kishumen, which name may be a combination of Arabic and Egyptian, was Nephite with no other information about him known.

AMALEKIAH

Amalekiah was a Zoramite leader of the dissident Amalekites. Amalek and Amalekite are Hebrew names mentioned in Genesis. This name is definitely not Jaredite, but Hebrew in origin, and is found in the Jewish community of Elephantine in Egypt from 650 B.C. onward.

NEHOR

Nehor is the name of a Jaredite city and land. It was also the name of a Nephite false prophet who set up a religious order and church, who killed Gideon (who had helped Ammon lead Limhi’s people out of bondage in the Land of Nephi), and was put to death on Alma’s orders. An entire city, Ammonihah, were of the Order and profession of Nehor, though Ammon, its founder, and Ammonihah, are Egyptian names, not Jaredite.

AMULON

Amulon was one of the priests of King Noah (like Alma), and later the leader of the Amulonites—the surviving priests of King Noah (who took by force the Lamanite daughters for wives). According to linguists, the name Amulon is considered Greek, from mela- (starch, not ground at a mill) or the Latin amylum (together) from the Greek. There is no reason to consider this name Jaredite.

ZENIFF

Zeniff might not be called a dissenter, but he was willing to disassociate himself from the Nephites and start his own community in a land far away, taking many Nephites from Zarahemla with him, including the brother of the prophet Amaleki. The name Zeniff is Egyptian.
    King Noah was a second generation Nephite in the City of Lehi-Nephi (city of Nephi) and son of the first king, Zeniff, who had led a party of Nephites from the city of Zarahemla back to the land and city King Mosiah had left earlier. A Nephite and well versed in the records with knowledge of the Land of Nephi, the land of his fathers’ first inheritance, Zeniff was among a party that had in mind to reconquer this land from the Lamanites, but after a war among the party as to how to handle their approach to the Lamanites, Zeniff and a few survivors, returned to Zarahemla. But Zeniff was “over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers” and gathered all those who would go with him to “possess the land” and returned to the land of Nephi, camping “near the land of our fathers” (Mosiah 9:1-4).

NEPHITES NOT MULEKITES

This should suggest to every reader that Zeniff and those who went with him back to reclaim that portion of the Land of Nephi which Mosiah and their fathers left a few years before, would have been Nephites, not Mulekites. No Mulekite or person of Zarahemla prior to Mosiah arriving there, would have had any interest or even knowledge of the Land of Nephi. However, descendants of Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Jacob and Joseph would have been very interested in the land and city that Nephi built some 350 years earlier.
    Zeniff, himself, claimed that this land was the inheritance of his fathers, Nephi, Jacob, Enos and the others, which obviously made him a pure descendant of one of these five tribes or forefathers. He would not have been a Mulekite, would not have been involved with any Jaredites, and would not even have known about the Jaredites in 200 B.C., since Mosiah did not translate Ether’s record until 92 B.C. Nor had the Jaredite bones and cities been discovered until Zeniff’s grandson, king Limhi, sent an expedition north that stumbled upon the old Jaredite ruins.

KING NOAH

There is no possible way that Zeniff’s son, King Noah, could have had any connection to the Jaredites, let alone had a Jaredite name as Nibley claims, but rather named after an ancient progenitor, the first patriarch after the Flood. No Nephite at that time had any knowledge of the Jaredites. In addition, Alma, who became a leader of the church, had a definitive Arab name, as shown earlier.
    Yet, Nibley writes of Alma, “Noah’s priest Alma betrays a mixture of culture if not of blood; his stamping ground was the Mulekite country...” However, Alma would have been around the same age as Noah, a second generation Nephite in the Land of Nephi. He would never have been in any Mulekite “stamping ground” nor known anything about the Mulekites other than what he might have learned from his father, who is not mentioned—and in fact, if Alma was some younger than Noah, might have been third generation in this land far away from the Mulekites.
    Lastly, there is no way to determine if king Noah demonstrated any Jaredite culture or not—Nibley suggests high taxes, but that has been the venue of every dictator throughout history (Noah’s tax was 20% of existing and increased wealth and possessions). This tax went to pay for building palaces, thrones, temples, and many spacious and elegant buildings. He removed the previous priests and leaders, and replaced them with his own evil followers, became idolatrous, had many wives and concubines, committing whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, delighting in blood and the shedding of blood—all of which is also a rather common role of the world’s evil despots from the time of Cain.
    It is hard to imagine how anyone can lay a claim of Jaredite culture on King Noah, as evil as he was—there were evil Jaredites, but also righteous ones. Noah’s son, Limhi, was a righteous man who the Lord led out of the Land of Nephi and back to Zarahemla.

JAREDITE NAME

Because someone had a Jaredite name, Nibley claims, they had some Jaredite connection—and also that they were Mulekites who used the Jaredite names. Yet, earlier, in discussing the names of Nephites, he makes the point that many of their names were Egyptian, such as Zeniff, Pahoran, Paanchi, Manti, Pacumeni, Cezoram, Kumen, Giddonah, Aha, Aminadab, Ammon, Helaman, Hem, and many others.
    However, at no time does the suggestion arise that these Nephites with such names, or place names, were Egyptians from the Old World, nor that the fact that these names implied any relationship between the Egyptians and Nephites in the Land of Promise, other than the fact that Lehi obviously had some likely business dealings with them in the Old World—though some of these names were given among the Nephites centuries after leaving Jerusalem and many generations before all second generation Nephites were born.
    Obviously, because we know that from the record, no connection is made between Egyptian and Nephite other than a possible early association. But with the Jaredites, nothing is known of their name association, so uncontestable statements are made regarding the Jaredite influence among the Mulekites because of names some Nephites were given.
(See the next post, “The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part VI,” for more on the fictitious “other people” in the Land of Promise)

The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part IV

Continuing from the previous posts regarding the attempt by scholars to include other people into the Land of Promise when no other people are mentioned by any of the writers or even such a presence is inferred. Whether or not there were, we may never know, but to manufacture the existence of others in light of not a single scriptural references or suggestion is neither scholarly nor of any value to our understanding the scriptural record or the Jaredite or Nephite experiences in the Land of Promise.

Coriantumr was definitely a dissenter from among the Nephites; and he was a large and mighty man” (Helaman 1:15). However, he lived in the 40th year of the Judges, about 51 B.C., around 200 years or so after the Nephites entered Zarahemla, at which time the more numerous Mulekites merged with the Nephites, and Mosiah was crowned King (Omni 1:19), and the Mulekites took upon themselves the name of Nephi so they could be numbered with the Nephites (Mosiah 25:12-13) “because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendant of Nephi” (Mosiah 25:13).
    Nor should we forget that when the Nephites, who were much less in number than the Mulekites, first entered Zarahemla, the Mulekites rejoiced greatly, as did Zarahemla, their leader, for the Nephites had “the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews” (Omni 1:14). So we have one dissenter with a Jaredite name who was a Mulekite. But what of the others?
• Coriantumr: Obviously, a descendant of Zarahemla, Coriantumr, in the year 51 B.C. would have probably been a second great grandson of Zarahemla, which seems a very long time to carry a grudge and want to rebel against the Nephites, who his ancestor embraced with exceeding joy. What would prompt a connection between people some four or five generations apart that would be so strong as to “betray such strong anti-Nephite leanings”? Is it possible Nibley is “clutching at straws” in his bid to show the Jaredite-Mulekite overlap?
• Korihor: Another dissenter, named Korihor, is credited by Nibley to be a Mulekite with a Jaredite name after Corihor, the grandson of Orihah and great grandson of Jared. However, another time, Nibley (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, edited by John W. Welch, Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company, Provo, Utah, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988, Chapter 22) claims the name Herihor was the great Egyptian priest also called Kherihor, Heriher, or Herihor, or even Kerihor, and concludes this discussion by stating “But no philologist will refuse to acknowledge the possible identity of the Book of Mormon Korihor with the Egyptian Kherihor.”

The point is, the name was originally Egyptian with whom the Jaredites might have been acquainted, since Abraham claims the pharoah’s high priest resided in Ur of the Chaldees only a few miles from the great Tower area where the Jaredites resided. But, one cannot have the name Korihor be Egyptian to suit one purpose, then claim it is Jaredite to suit another. It should be kept in mind that it was the Nephites, specifically Lehi, who was acquainted with the Egyptians, giving two of his sons Egyptian names. We know of no direct contact or knowledge of Egypt among the Jaredites who left the Tower—yet, Nible claims the name was Egyptian.
• Noah: Another man Nibley claims was a Mulekite with a Jaredite name was Corihor’s son, king Noah (Ether 7:14). In addition, there was also the Nephite king Noah, son of king Zeniff and father of king Limhi. Nibley writes of these two Noahs, “Noah was a Jaredite king, and another Noah was a Nephite king. The name may be authentic Jaredite, for aside from the original Biblical character ‘Noah’ (the name) ‘does not recur elsewhere in Hebrew either alone or as a component part of a name.”

It should be kept in mind that Noah, נֹחַ (נוח), is listed as a Hebrew name, spelled Νωε, Noe, and pronounced NO-e (or No’akh), derived from Hebrew Noach, meaning “rest, comfort.” 
It is interesting that three names are mentioned—one a patriarch and seventh great grandson of Adam, and the father of all living on the earth after the Flood, another a Jarediate king and direct descendant of father Noah, another a Nephite king, and distant relative of father Noah, yet Nibley wants to associate the name only with the Jaredites. The name obviously was first connected to the patriarch Noah (long before there were any Jaredites), coming from the verb nuah, meaning rest, and usually listed as meaning “peaceful.” Now since all the people of the earth following Noah were descended directly from him, the name could not possibly be considered Jaredite, but rather of the patriarchical order, and has been used through numerous generations, with numerous spellings.
• Alma: Nibley also makes an attempt to draw Alma into the Jaredite picture by writing, “Noah’s priest Alma betrays a mixture of culture if not of blood; his stamping ground was the Mulekite country, and two of his grandsons bore the Jaredite names of Shiblon and Corianton.”

According to Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 1876), Almah, עֶלֶם, in the masculine Hebrew means a “young man,” “lad,” or “stripling” or even “a young warrior.” Also, according to Daniel C. Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at BYU, and who spent many years studying in Jerusalem and Cairo, states: “Yigael Yadin, probably the most prominent of all Israeli archaeologists in this century, a man who went on to become deputy prime minister of Israel. He was chief of staff of the Israeli military in the 1948 war of independence. He is a very impressive man and a great scholar. While investigating a cave down by the Dead Sea, he found a document which bore the name Alma son of Judah. Unmistakably written A-L-M-A in everything Yadin published about that excavation.”
    It should be kept in mind that in the scriptural record, 1) Alma is not mentioned in anyway or at any time as a Jaredite name—in fact the name was popular among the Arabs in Lehi’s time; 2) Alma’s history, what little we know of it in King Noah’s court, shows no Jaredite cultural or blood connection; 3) Alma’s “stamping ground” was in the City of Lehi-Nephi (city of Nephi) which at no time could be considered a Mulekite territory, but rather a Lamanite territory once the Nephites left under King Mosiah before they ever encountered the Mulekites in Zarahemla.
    As for the names of his grandsons, Alma of King Noah’s court, who repented of his evil ways and became a great prophet and leader, named his son Alma, after himself. The parentage of this first Alma is unknown, however, he would have been a grandson or great grandson of the original men from Zarahemla who “went up into the wilderness to return to the land of Nephi...who were desirous to possess the land of their inheritance” (Omni 1:27). These men could not have been Mulekites, for the people of Zarahemla were never in the Land of Nephi and had no land of inheritance there. These men were Nephites, one of which was the brother of Amaleki, the last of the Nephite prophets in Jacob’s line.
    Therefore, Alma would have been a Nephite, not a Mulekite, and the fact that his son, who he named Alma, named his eldest son Helaman, and the other two, Shiblon and Corianton, probably has little more relationship to the Jaredites than the fact that Alma was in possession of all the records and would have known about the Jaredites and their many names. In any event it can hardly be suggested that Alma was in any way connected to the Jaredites by either culture or blood as Nibley claims.
• Morianton: This was the name of a Jaredite king, and also the name of a Nephite who settled a land on the coast called Morianton. The name is considered Egyptian, meaning “Beloved of Aten,” and is the same as Meriaton and Meriamon, both Egyptian names.  It should be noted that “mimation” (ending with –m) predominated in Jaredite names, while “nunation” (ending with –n) predominated in Nephite and Lamanite names (Michael T. Griffith, Refuting the Critics, Cedar Fort, 1993).

In 68 B.C., Morianton and his people claimed part of an adjacent land named Lehi, as their own and a contention arose between these two lands and their people (Alma 50:26). When the people in the land of Lehi sought Moroni’s help in solving the problem, Morianton led his people northward.
    Moroni fearing Morianton and his band would get into the Land Northward and cause the Nephite nation problems, brought his army in pursuit, finally heading Morianton and his people “by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward” (Alma 50:34).
    Teancum defeated Morianton’s army in a battle in which Morianton was killed. There is no mention in the record of Morianton being a Jaredite, connected to the Jaredites, or that he was a Mulekite or connected to the Mulekites. All we have to go on is his name, which Nibley automatically claimed made him a Mulekite dissenter with a Jaredite name; however, the name could have come from the Egyptian name Meriaton, which means “Beloved of Aton,” and who was an Egyptian prince. Both the Jaredite names and the Egyptian names were known to the Nephites. What his lineage might have been is unknown.
• Gaddianton: This name is claimed to be Jaredite, but could as well have been a corruption of Egyptian. Also, Gad is Hebrew, from gadad or gedud, with both the seventh son of Jacob and a later prophet in the time of David so named. It was this Gaddianton who took over the band of Kishkumen, later called the Gaddianton Robbers, but who cannot be considered Jaredite, or Mulekite with Jaredite name, for the band not only flourished among the Nephites, but were even more numerous among the Lamanites (Helaman 6:18).
    Gaddianton, himself, was obviously not concerned about any past grievances, but was enticed by Satan, as were Adam and Eve, and who plotted with Cain (Helaman 6:26-27), and put into the hearts of the people to build the Great Tower, and who spread his works of darkness.
    The point is, despite Nibley’s insistence, it cannot be said that any name was Jaredite or Mulekite other than Coriantumr who it is stated was a descendant of Zarahemla (a Mulekite descendant).
(See the next post, “The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part IV,” for more on the fictitious “other people” in the Land of Promise)

The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part III

Continuing from the previous posts regarding the attempt by scholars to include other people into the Land of Promise when no other people are mentioned by any of the writers or even such a presence is inferred. Whether or not there were, we may never know, but to manufacture the existence of others is neither scholarly nor of any value to our understanding the scriptural record or the Jaredite or Nephite experiences in the Land of Promise.

Another questionable point posed by these threorists, is the one regarding who were Coriantumr’s people and what was his kingdom? First of all, Coriantumr became “king over all the land” (Ether 12:1). Now there is only one way to interpret that—king over all the land. That is like the President of the United States being president over all the land—not just Illinois, California and Iowa—Coriantumr was king over all the land, over all the Jaredites in the land, over everyone who lived within the Jaredite kingdom.
    Somewhere along the line, there became a schism within the Jaredite kingdom, and “there were two kingdoms, the kingdom of Shule, and the kingdom of Cohor, the son of Noah” (Ether 7:20); following a battle in which Cohor was killed, his son, Nimrod who “gave up the kingdom of Cohor unto Shule” (Ether 7:22). Many wars followed until the rightful king, Omer, was overthrown and “the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land” (Ether 9:3). He was eventually followed in line by one named Shez, who, after a great famine that killed most of the Jaredites, and he was eventually followed by one named Morianton who became king “over all the land” (Ether 10:9). The kingdom was divided once again under Moron (Ether 11:15), then followed another division until finally in the days of Ether, Coriantumr “was king over all the land” (Ether 12:1).

During this time great evil covered the land and Ether was cast out from among the people for preaching and found safety in the cavity of a rock. Now there began to be a great war between Coriantumr and “many who rose up, who were mighty men,” with “secret plans of wickedness” like the secret combinations of old (Ether 11:15;13:15). When Coriantumr inherited the kingdom, himself probably the son or grandson of the mighty man who was descended from the brother of Jared.
    These Jaredite wars actually lasted from this time until the end of the record, with Coriantumr the legitimate king over all the land, but who had to face numerous challengers to his throne—first, those of the mighty men, then Shared, Gilead, Lib, and finally Shiz. During these battles, Coriantumr was beaten and imprisoned, released by his sons to reclaim the throne, had the throne usurped by Lib, and then his brother, Shiz, who, in Coriantumr’s time, the Jaredite kingdom truly became divided, with Shiz the military leader of one half and Coriantumr, the rightful king, leading the other half.
    From the time of Coriantumr, there were none of the fair sons and daughters upon the face of the whole earth who repented of their sins (Ether 13:17), and during one two year period, there was fighting among “all the people upon the face of the land” (Ether 13:31), and every man with his band fighting for that which he desired (Ether 13:25). After the loss of some five or six million Jaredite men, women, and children—called the people of Coriantumr, since he was the legitimate king over the kingdom at that time, a final running battle took place between Coriantumr and Shiz, which resulted in all dying, and Coriantumr becoming “the last (and only) man standing.”
    At this time, the Jaredite kingdom ceased to exist. Coriantumr’s people, the Jaredites ceased to exist. Coriantumr survived, as prophesied, only long enough to see another people inheriting the land his people had once occupied—the land of promise. Yet, undaunted, Nibley states: “Yet the Book of Mormon itself makes such an interpretation impossible—the Nephites were destroyed, we are told, but it is pertinent to the case of the Jaredites to ask...what is meant by destroyed?”

Adding a little later, “So when we read that the Jaredites “were destroyed by the hand of the Lord upon the face of this north country” in the very first verse of Ether, we are to understand that the nation was smashed and dispersed, but not that the catastrophic final battle was necessarily the whole story.”
    In all honesty, it is impossible to arrive at such a conclusion from what is written in the scriptural record of the Book of Mormon. Yet, Nibley then tries to make a comparison between Ether’s example of the destruction of the Jaredites, and Mosiah’s comments about Ether’s record, as he writes: “The first thing that occurs to King Mosiah on the discovery of the twenty-four gold plates was, ‘perhaps they will give us a knowledge of the remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence this record came...’ showing that whether anyone survived or not, for Mosiah at least it was perfectly possible for remnants of a people to exist after that people had been destroyed.”
    This is the type of problem one encounters when reading information like this—since most people do not look up references, they accept what is written. However, sometimes theorists are terribly wrong, as in this case! It was not King Mosiah who said this, and the statement quoted had nothing to do with a time frame after the record was read by King Mosiah, and therefore no reference can either be made to King Mosiah in this, nor that he thought there were remnants of Jaredites after reading the record. The fact is, it was King Limhi who makes this comment. And King Limhi could not read the plates of Ether, had no idea what they contained, and only knew that a large number of people had been killed, whose bodies and buildings had been discovered by some of his people he sent to find Zarahemla, but became lost and stumbled onto the old Jaredite lands (Mosiah 8:7-8).
    One might give Nibley the shadow of the doubt and say it was an honest mistake—however, he uses this fallacious and disingenuous argument by combining events that happened about 30 years apart, and among two entirely different people living in two entirely different areas, to try and prove an extremely important point of his—that Jaredites survived the last, great battle, and in so doing, to show that what we read in the scriptures are not always as simple and obvious as they appear.
    It might also be of interest, by the way, that King Mosiah never said or indicated that any Jaredites might have survived that last battle after reading Ether’s plates—in fact, after telling the people of the content, the people “mourned exceedingly and were filled with sorrow” (Mosiah 28:18). One would think, that if there were any survivors it would have been mentioned here and that the people were glad of that. But it is all about being filled with sorrow that the Jaredites had been destroyed. After this, Mosiah conferred the record, among other things, to his son, Alma.

In addition, Nibley writes that “There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that shows direct contact between the Nephihtes and the Jaredites.” Interestingly, despite his knowing this fact, it does not stop him from suggesting that there was such contact, stating, “There is always a go-between— the Mulekites, who, as the story of the elder Coriantumr shows, were the nearest neighbors to the Jareditees and separated, as we learn from Mosiah’s account, by a considerable distance from the Nephites.” Indeed, with the only Jaredite mentioned in the entire 1000-year history of the Nephite record being Coriantumr, whom the Mulekites discovered in the area of Zarahemla, a city and land no Nephite entered until Mosiah led some from the City of Nephi down into the land of Zarahemla somewhere around 200 B.C., one can see the vast distance involved.
    Now, despite there being no mention of anyone other than Coriantumr, Nibley goes on to write, “Everything points to the absorption of a good deal of Jaredite culture by the people of Zarahemla shortly after their arrival.” So we find that Nibley claims the Mulekites were intermingled with Jaredite “survivors,” and absorbed a good deal of Jaredite culture. How anyone might arrive at this conclusion is interesting since there is absolutely no mention of anything Mulekite in the way of culture, heritage (other than coming out of Jerusalem “at the time Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon” (Omni 1:15), or genealogies. Thus, Nibley centers his reasoning on two things, 1) the names of dissenters, and 2) claiming all the dissenters were Mulekites. Of this latter, Nibley writes; “is there something significant about those Nephites who bear Jaredite names? The answer is a surprise: Every one of these men had a Mulekite background and is a leader of subversive movements against the Nephite state and religion!”
    Again, this is very interesting that every Nephite dissenter was a Mulekite, since we have very little record of such lineages—the only definite connection is Coriantumr, who “was a descendant of Zarahemla,”
(See the next post, “The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part IV,” for more on the fictitious “other people” in the Land of Promise)

The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding the meaning of “destroy” and whether or not the destruction of the Jaredites was complete.

Despite such clarity as shown in the previous article, there are those who want to cloud the issue by claiming the Jaredites were not completely destroyed, that they intermingled with 1) the Mulekites, 2) the Nephites, and 3) with the Lamanites. Interestingly enough, Hugh Nibley also claimed that only once in the Book of Mormon do we read of a case of annihilation, when we are specifically told that “every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed” (Alma 16:9). However, as stated earlier, Ether prophesied to Coriantumr that all his people would be destroyed save himself—and that his life would be spared so he could see someone else inherit the land. Of this, Nibley asks the question, “Every soul of what?” then answers his own question with, “Specifically of “his kingdom...and all his household.”
    However, if that was the case, that is, that other Jaredites were left to live in the land, how then is “seeing another people inherit the land” a meaningful punishment or pronouncement against Coriantumr since the so-called surviving Jaredites would already have possessed the land as their inheritance and still possessed it?
    No, the simple fact is, Ether stated in several places that “all the people” were involved in the final battle— after several million of Coriantumr’s people had already been destroyed (Ether 15:2), claiming that Coriantumr and Shiz, the two leaders of the split Jaredite kingdom at the time, spent four years gathering “all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether” (Ether 15:12,14, emphasis added).
    This seems pretty clear: 1) all the people, that is all the Jaredites; 2) who lived in all the land, that is, in all the Jaredite lands, 3) all the people who had not been killed, that is, all the living Jaredites; and 4) all except Ether, that is, Ether was not part of this final battle, but all the other Jaredites were, including Coriantumr and all his household. Look at the language used. “Save it were Ether.” One of the definitions of “save” is “except.” So it is meant, “All the Jaredites except for Ether.”
    This is  borne out in another verse when Moroni wrote: “And it came to pass that neither would the sons of Jared, even all save it were one; and Orihah was anointed to be king over the people” (Ether 6:27, emphasis added); and also in “and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family” (Ether 9:3, emphasis added) also “And there began to be a war between Akish and the sons of Akish, which lasted for the space of many years, yea, unto the destruction of nearly all the people of the kingdom, yea, even all, save it were thirty souls, and they who fled with the house of Omer” (Ether 9:12, emphasis added).
    We see this also in “for Heth had perished by the famine, and all his household save it were Shez—wherefore, Shez began to build up again a broken people” (Ether 10:1, emphasis added); also “Otherwise they should be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself”…

”And every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr” (Ether 13:21, emphasis added); also “they had all fallen by the sword save it were fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr” (Ether 13:23, emphasis added); and also “that when they had all fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz” (Ether 15:29, emphasis added).
    There can be no doubt, that in each of these cases, the “save it were” is very explicit and clearly means “except it were,” or that person was an exception to what was being said. Thus, when it says, “And it came to pass that they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether” (Ether 15:12, emphasis added), it is meant that “all the people upon all the face of the land, save (except) it was Ether,” had been gathered in, i.e., all the people upon all the face of the land, except for Ether.”
    What is so complicated for theorists who want to place others in the land by claiming the Jaredites survived to understand the plain and clear language of the scriptural record?
    “All” means “every one,” “the whole quantity,” “the entire amount,” “wholly,” “completely,” “entirely,” “the whole number.” All the people in all the land, is about as clear as a writer can be.
    Thus, all the people except for Ether, i.e., all the people on all the face of the land—that is everyone—except Ether!
    There was no one left to survive this battle, for later on, we are told “when they had all fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz,” we are being told all died except for two. What is so hard to understand? They gathered all the people on all the face of the land together in these two fighting armies (except for Either), and after days of battle, all had been killed but two! And then one killed the other—leaving just one! And he wandered about, finally ending up among the Mulekites, who, after nine months, buried him. And another people inherited the land!
    Wow! Is that Rocket Science?
    Yet, Hugh Nibley and many other theorists claim that not only was Ether spared, which the scriptures clearly state, but that other Jaredites and “other inhabitants of the continent—Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites that were actually living here at the time of the Jaredite destruction.” This is another fallacious argument since, even if the date of the Jaredite destruction did overlap the arrival of the Nephites and Mulekites, Coriantumr would not have known that, nor would Ether, who wrote the final chapters of Jaredite history, have known it at the time the prophesy was delivered.

The Jaredites never went south of the narrow neck of land, except to hunt, and these two lands were separate from one another until the Nephites moved into the Land Northward around 50 B.C. Thus, the Jaredites would not have known about the Mulekites nor the Nephites and Lamanites

  
It might also be of interest that earlier in his book, Nibley, when trying to compare the Jaredites with conquering tribes of western Asia, with the writings of Bar Hebraeus, the book of Taras Bulba, and the hordes of Mongols, Nibley makes the interesting statement: “The insane wars of the Jaredite chiefs ended in the complete annihilation of both sides, with the kings the last to go.”
    Isn’t that contradictory?
    This type of contradictory writing is often found in cases where an author is willing to use any argument to make his points—here we find that Nibley uses the “complete annihilation” side of the argument to make his point about the Jaredites being like the hordes of Asia where all are killed in battle except for the two surviving kings, then later, used the opposite argument of “Jaredite survivors” when he wants to claim not everyone was “annihilated.”

So what is the purpose of questioning what has been written? Are we too dumb to understand and need someone to guide us into understanding the plain, clear and simple writings of Mormon and Moroni?
(See the next post, “The Disservice of Manufacturing of Other People – Part II,” for more on the fictitious “other people” in the Land of Promise)