Book of Mormon (1 Nephi- Alma 49): Doctrines & Evidences
October 20, 2010
SHORT SUMMARY
--The Land of Nahom: Archaeologists may have found the site where Ishmael (1 Nephi 16:34) died. What did they find, and what does it prove?
I just enrolled in institute, middle of the semester, so I'm only just learning my teacher's name. He seems impressive enough., certainly full of the voracity, fervor, conviction necessary to take on a job like his. Online, we'll call him “Brother Wood”.
He begins his lesson by pointing to the white board and saying that 1993- 1994 was a “bad year for atheists”. I'm an atheist, and wondered what he meant by that. Had he heard of a proof for God that I hadn't? I was definitely intrigued. He turned on a movie.
The film is “Journey of Faith" All I know is that it was a Mormon-made discussion on the historicity of the early part of the Book of Mormon, the part where Nephi's family travels through the wilderness, and the archaeological evidence for the path they took. This is a summary of how they believe it went down:
Lehi and his family followed the Frankincense Trail if not close to it, because they would have needed water, and water was scarce. The traveled in tents (similar to Bedoin tribes, perhaps?). Camels, though they were not mentioned, must have been their pack animal of choice because they can go long distances due to their fat deposits in their humps. Travelling consisted of fattening up your camels, taking the jump by travelling to the nearest well (which was usually very far away). They probably needed to stay somewhat close to the mountains as they provided shelter for animals, and the family needed meat and food. It probably took about a year to travel (because the women start having babies on the trek, says Brother Wood). Ishmael was probably very sick and died near to Nahom, where he was buried, which probably caused great mourning because, as an Israelite, it was sad he was not able to be buried near home.
An archaeological expedition revealed in 1994 a burial ground and mummified remains mummified differently than the tradition of Egypt. The burial ground dated to around 600 bc (when Nephi should have been passing through) and it was near a large altar whereon was carved the letters "NHM".
The end of the movie had several historians (I assume they're historians) posing the question "How could Joseph [Smith] possibly have known Nahom?" Brother Wood repeated the question to us, "How did he know about Nahom where you buried dead people?" He added that this area had been taken over Al Qaeda, and that if any of us went in there now we'd be killed and that it's a crazy place. ...I am unsure how that had to do with the topic on hand...
One of the most prominent responses from critics is that NHM doesn't equate to "Nahom", and that there could have been 25 combinations of N + vowel + H + vowel + M. (Nihom, Nahm, Neham, Nohom, etc) This has always been a point of contention, however, because Hebrew doesn't have written vowels and the vowels often switch in the same word. Nahom may not equal NHM, but it's circumstantial at best of it not being the place they laid Ishmael to rest.
There are other responses from critics. One of which is that we only have one correct vowl-substitution/pronunciation for NHM, Nihm. Concerning this, FAIR said "Some may wonder why the name Nihm is being likened unto Nahom. Of course, they are different. However, Brother Brown makes an important point when he informed us, "in Semitic languages one writes with consonants rather than vowels. Hence, the name is NHM. These letters make up the name on the altars and also the name Nahom." One difference is worthy of note, when considering how NHM would have been pronounced, which determines how we add vowels to the word in English. The south Arabian NHM would have been said with a soft "H" sound, thus rendering it "Nihm." However, the "H" in Hebrew, would likely have been a strong "H" sound, the Hebrew letter, "het," resulting in "Nahom." Additionally, Lehi and his family would have associated NHM with "a Hebrew term which was familiar to them, that is, Nahom."" The idea is that the tribes would have pronounced it "Nihm", but Lehi and his family would have only known to pronounce it "Nahom". Mormon Think retorts "Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely a tribal place name changed its pronunciation. Remember the inscription is most probably a tribal name, not merely a location. Are we to suppose the pronunciation was changed from Nahom to Nihm? This is an assumption that we simply cannot make without forcing the evidence."
Several locations have been found in the Arabian Peninsula with names similar to Nahom. "Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Nehemiah 7:7) and Nahum (Nahum 1:1) all appear in the Bible."-- Article on Nahom It could be that NHM referred to a tribe from one of these places.
Lehi and his family had been commanded that they not light many fires, even to the point where they ate raw meat (1 Nephi 17:2, 12). He mentions this after making a bellows in chapter 17, after chapter 16 when they reached Nahom. They would've needed a pretty good reason to not cook their meat since it would have gone against the Torah, not to mention the health risks associated with eating uncooked meat. Not having a fire would make them much more difficult to spot by passer-bys. The area where the altars were (NHM), was well-populated enough that it would have blown their cover. Perhaps they had to stop to bury Ishmael with respect.
Mormon Think addresses the grammatical issue associated with NHM and its translation to "Nahom" when it says, "Even if it were derived from "NHM", the word "Nahom" cannot be shown to be an independent word. In other words, it could be the case that the placename was "Nah" and the -om part is merely a suffix. This point further militates against an identification of "NHM" with a placename called "Nahom."
In the message board discussion referenced above, David Wright notes an error on the part of LDS apologist John Tvedtnes. Tvedtnes, in his article "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," associates Nahom with Hebrew n-kh-m, but errs when he suggests that Nehhem in Yemen is the same root. Nehhem has a soft "h" but NHM has a hard "h" as in Scottish "loch" as we saw earlier. Since the two roots (n-h ans n-ch) differ, there is no point in making an association between them, and in fact it is wrong to do so."
MY CONCLUSION:
The discovery of an altar with the letters "NHM" is interesting, especially in terms of it matching a vague idea of where the city should lie, were the Book of Mormon true. However, the mash-up of evidence is not conclusive, certainly not enough to make it an irrefutable evidence of the Book of Mormon's historicity.
References:
(Also, at the end of the lesson we talked about proof for Biblical King David on the Mesha Stele at the Louvre... interesting, but I think I'll stick to Book of Mormon stuff for now, eh?)
I really thought this was interesting. I hope you continue to post more from the things that you learn!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to my blog! Interesting summary.
ReplyDelete