The 600 Year Prophecy of the Birth of Christ (Howlers # 26 )

The Book of Mormon locates the birth of Christ too late in the world's history to harmonize with the Bible, claiming that Lehi left Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah's reign, (1st Book of Nephi, chap. 1) and that Christ's birth was six hundred years from that epoch.

William Sheldon, Mormonism Examined (1876), 9.

The chronology of the Book of Mormon is quite at fault when compared with the dates now accepted by biblical scholars. The Book of Mormon places the departure of Lehi from Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah (1 Nephi 1:4), the years that follow are carefully counted from that date . . . . Now scholars are agreed that the first year of Zedekiah was in 597-596 B.C., and counting 600 years from that time would date the birth of Christ in the year 4-5 A.D. But the date best attested for the birth of Christ is 6 B.C.

Paul Jones, The Bible and the Book of Mormon (1912), 5.

Smith was unaware that Zedekiah must be dated at 597 B.C. instead of the 600 B.C. date the Book of Mormon assigns him. He was unaware that the birth of Christ must now be placed some time prior to 4 B.C., . . .  so he wove into his fabric of the book a modern chronological error. The error was Dionysius Exiguus', who set up the present system of dating time from the birth of Christ in the sixth century A.D. He mistakenly equated A.D. 1 with the Roman year 754 (A.U.C.), whereas Herod the Great had died four years earlier in the Roman year 750 (A.U.C.); or in 4 B.C. by our present dating system. The only way scholars can correct this error is to date the actual birth of Christ prior to 4 B.C., yielding less than 593 years between Zedekiah and the birth of Jesus.

Wesley Walters, Examiner, Independence, Missouri, 17 September, 1977.


In his work, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, John Sorenson wrote:

Both by prophecy (1 Nephi 10:4; 19:8; 2 Nephi 25:19) and by Nephite historical reckoning (3 Nephi 1:1) the American scripture allots “600 years” for the interval between Lehi’s departure in Zedekiah’s first year and the birth of Jesus Christ. Yet secular historical records allow no more than about 593 years (597 B.C. to 4 B.C.) between these events.

Sorenson notes that among the Maya, whose calendar is the one we know best, there were at least three ways in which years were calculated. One of these was the tun a year consisting of 360 days.

Suppose the Nephites used the same system of counting time as the Maya. The prophesied “six hundred years” in that reckoning would constitute precisely one and one half baktuns (thirty katuns), a neat total of 216.000 days. But this count of 600 tun “years” would be about 3,156 days shorter than the total using our sidereal year today (approximately 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes, and 9.54 seconds long). In other words, “600 years” by the Maya tun method of calculating time would turn out 8.64 years shorter than “600 years” than today’s conventional sense. If we mark off 600 tun years from Zedekiah’s first year, 597-596 B.C., 216,000 brings us into the year overlapping 5-4 B.C., an acceptable date for Christ’s birth. . . .

If the Nephite “year” had been the same as our present year of 365+ days, then the Book of Mormon prophecies and its history as well would be in error, for from Zedekiah to Christ’s birth is in fact not 600 but closer to 592 of our solar years. But if we suppose that the Nephites used the method of calculating time that was standard in southern Mesoamerica, where ther Nephite lands must lie, then 600 of the 360-day tun years used there matches rather neatly the apparent interval from Zedekiah to Christ. Not only is the “problem” eliminated, but we obtain an important perspective of the Nephites’ use of the calendar system that prevailed in their geographical and cultural setting (John Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985, 272-274).


In a more recent and very careful evaluation of the historical evidence Thomas Wayment concluded that most likely, “his birth took place between the spring and winter of 5 B.C.” (Thomas A. Wayment, “The Birth and Death Dates of Jesus Christ,” in Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment, eds., The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, From Bethlehem Through the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 394; See also Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, “When Was Jesus Born? A Response to a Recent Proposal,” BYU Studies 51/3 [2012]: 53-81).

Critics of the Book of Mormon felt that the issue of the six hundred year prophecy was important enough to dismiss the Book of Mormon as fiction, yet subsequent research suggests that it fits rather nicely into what we know about Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican chronology. Those who have never given the matter of the Book of Mormon much attention, or are prone to dismiss it out of hand, may wonder, if Joseph Smith wrote it, how he happened to get this and other significant points right. They might also give prayerful and serious consideration to the proposition that the Book of Mormon may be exactly what it purports to be.

Neal A. Maxwell on the "Great and Spacious Building"

"Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. Like the throng on the ramparts of the `great and spacious building,' they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26-28, 33). Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, `Is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building--like a bowling alley?' Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts."

[Neal A. Maxwell, "`Becometh as a Child,'" Ensign May 1996: 68].

"After I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness" (1 Nephi 8:8).

For those who don't remain forever on a spiritual high here are a few thoughts from Elder Orson Pratt:

"But now having spoken so much about the benefits of this light, and how good it would be to be continually guided and instructed by the spirit of revelation, there is another thing connected with it which we perhaps do not all fully understand. Supposing a person were thus guided all the time, from waking in the morning until they retired to rest at night; and then when asleep if his dreams were given by the same spirit, and this should be the uninterrupted condition of an individual, I ask, where would be his trials? This would lead us to ask, Is it not absolutely necessary that God should in some measure, withhold even from those who walk before him in purity and integrity, a portion of his Spirit, that they may prove to themselves, their families and neighbors, and to the heavens whether they are full of integrity even in times when they have not so much of the Spirit to guide and influence them? I think that this is really necessary, consequently I do not know that we have any reason to complain of the darkness which occasionally hovers over the mind. I recollect that Lehi had a very great and important dream communicated to him, and his son Nephi had the same renewed to him. While Lehi was on his way to this country he dreamed that he wandered many hours in darkness; that there was a certain rod of iron, notwithstanding this darkness that seemed to gather around him, on which the old man leaned steadfastly. So great was the darkness that he was fearful he should lose his way if he let go the rod of iron; but he clung to it, and continued to wander on until, by and by, he was brought out into a large and spacious field, and he also was brought out to a place where it was lighter, and he saw a certain tree which bore very precious fruit. And he went forth and partook of the fruit of his tree, which was the most precious and desirable of any fruit that he had ever tasted; and it seemed to enlighten him and fill him with joy and happiness. Lehi was a good old man--a man who had been raised up as a great prophet in the midst of Jerusalem. He had prophesied in the midst of all that wickedness which surrounded the Jews; and they sought to take away his life, because of his prophecy. But not withstanding this gift of prophecy, and the gifts of the Spirit which he enjoyed, the Lord showed him by this dream that there would be seasons of darkness through which he would have to pass, and that even then there was a guide. If he did not all the time have the Spirit of God upon him to any great extent, there was the word of God, represented by an iron rod, to guide him; and if he would hold fast to that in his hours of darkness and trial, when everything seemed to go against him, and not sever himself therefrom, it would finally bring him where he could partake of the fruit of the precious tree--the Tree of Life. Consequently I am not so sure, that it is intended for men of God to enjoy all the time a great measure of his Spirit."

[Orson Pratt, November 24, 1872, in Journal of Discourses, Vol.15: 234-235]. 

"Imaginations"

And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men (1 Nephi 12:18).

We know that the great and spacious building was a symbol of pride, but what are "imaginations"? Aida Besancon Spencer (Journal of Biblical Literature 100 [1981]: 247-48), provides insight into the meaning of the word shereeroth which may shed additional light on Nephi’s description of the great and spacious building in this passage. The word shereeroth is a kind of idolatrous self-reliance usually rendered “imaginations” in our King James Bibles and in other translations as “stubbornness.” It appears ten times in the writings of Nephi’s contemporary Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17), and twice elsewhere (Deut 29:19; Psalms 81:12). In these passages it is tied closely to the events of the Exodus where Israel rebelled against God. It is used to describe those Israelites who broke their covenant with God and became idolatrous, saying, “I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart” (Deuteronomy 29:19). “Thus we find in this passage the interesting intertwining of attraction to foreign idols and a false sense of security since the person who acts in this manner will not be pardoned but will be singled out for calamity, in other words, captivity” (247).

Spencer states,

[Shereeroth] as a transitive verb has the basic significance to twist, to twist together, to wind together, to knot together, in the manner of a cord. It is a verb idea to denote a muscle, sinew, cord, lace, chain. From the referent developed the metaphorical sense, to be firm, hard, tough, properly, to be knotted together, thus the meaning `hardness,’ `firmness,’ `strength’ . . . . [It denotes] a strength or firmness which is, in essence, twisted or stubbornness. It appears as self-reliance to those relying on it, but stubbornness or twisted strength to God” (247).

Like the positive Hebrew term for faithfulness (emunah) the word shereeroth signifies firmness, but it is wholly negative, for “one is understood as `truth’ while the other is understood as `perversity.’ One emanates from God , while the other emanates from the individual (248). Those in the Bible who typify this characteristic are seen as not only as independent from but also in a state of rebellion against God and ripe for captivity and destruction.

Lehi as a Visionary Man

One of the complaints leveled against Lehi by his rebellious sons Laman and Lemuel and his wife Sariah was that he was a "visionary man" (1 Nephi 2:11; 5:2). Although this term does not appear in the King James translation of the Bible, it accurately reflects the Hebrew word hazon meaning divine vision (John A. Tvedtnes, "A Visionary Man," in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999], 29—31). Although this Hebrew term appears in connection with true prophets of God it is also sometimes written with a negative connotation, describing false prophets, especially in the writings of Lehi's contemporary, Jeremiah (Jeremiah 14:14; 23:16).

In Jeremiah 23, the prophet refers to certain opponents who cried peace in contradiction to his true message of repentance and the impending destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah wrote, "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:16). They deceptively cried peace for Jerusalem "unto everyone that walketh after the imagination of his own heart" (Jeremiah 23:17). The Lord drew a distinction between true prophets and the false prophets of his day. "For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? . . . But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from their evil doings" (Jeremiah 23:18, 22, emphasis added). The Hebrew word rendered "counsel" in this passage is sod meaning a "council" or "assembly." In contrast to these false prophets, Jeremiah had received his message in the heavenly council of God (Hebrew sod), while the false prophets had not (H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Council of Yahweh," Journal of Theological Studies 45/179—80 [1944]: 151—57; S. B. Parker, "Council," in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd rev. ed. [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 204—8; John W. Welch, "The Calling of a Prophet," in The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. [Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988], 35—54).

In a revelation to Jeremiah which some biblical scholars date to the early reign of Zedekiah (Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21—36 [New York: Anchor Bible and Doubleday, 2004], 211). the Lord said, "I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour. . . . The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully" (Jeremiah 23:25—28).

While we do not know whether these revelations of Jeremiah would have been known to Laman and Lemuel at the time, the charges they leveled against Lehi seem to reflect similar views. "For behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man. . . . And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart" (1 Nephi 2:11). Later, they leveled the same false accusation against Nephi (1 Nephi 17:20). In light of the controversies reflected in Jeremiah, it seems likely that when Laman and Lemuel described their father as a "visionary man," they were not simply suggesting that he was an old fool. They were accusing him of being a false prophet who was leading their family astray.
Nephi, on the other hand, who knew that those accusations were false, countered them by noting that (1) Lehi (like Jeremiah) had stood in the divine council and received his message from the Lord (1 Nephi 1:8—14); (2) unlike the false prophets who had a message of peace, Lehi preached that the people must repent or be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:13); (3) unlike the false prophets who claimed dreams but did not reveal their content or call the people to repentance (Jeremiah 23:28), Lehi openly declared the messages he received from the Lord to the Jews (1 Nephi 1:18) and to his family (1 Nephi 8:2—38). In his account of his father's visions, Nephi seems to be responding in some measure to his brothers' accusation that Lehi was a false visionary.

In this light, Lehi's gentle response to his wife's accusation is also interesting. He affirmed, "I know that I am a [true] visionary man; for if I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren" (1 Nephi 5:4). This was a knowledge that the false prophets in Jerusalem did not have. "For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge" (Jeremiah 4:22). Lehi's declaration that he knew of "the goodness of God" reflects what he had learned in his vision of the heavenly council, where he "had read and seen many great and marvelous things" and learned of God's "power, and goodness, and mercy" (1 Nephi 1:14). Like the false prophets at Jerusalem, Laman and Lemuel were ignorant of the Lord and his ways (1 Nephi 2:12; 15:3). The false visionaries would not hearken to the message of Jeremiah and were cast out of God's presence (Jeremiah 23:39). A similar judgment awaited Lehi's sons if they continued to reject the teachings of true visionary men like Lehi and Nephi (1 Nephi 2:21).

[From Matthew Roper, “Lehi as a Visionary Man,” Insights: An Ancient Window 27/4 (2007): 2-3].

Lehi and the "Pillar of Fire"

And it came to pass, as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly (1 Nephi 1:6).

When Israel traveled in the wilderness the Lord manifested his glory as a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21-22). After the wilderness tabernacle was dedicated this same cloud of glory filled it (40: 34-35). This glory was present, accompanied, and led the people of Israel in all their wanderings (40:36-37) “For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys” (Exodus 40:34-38). On the day Solomon dedicated the temple at Jerusalem the cloud of the Lord’s glory again filled the temple (1 Kings 8:10-11) and was thereafter thought to abide there.  Lehi’s contemporary Ezekiel would see in vision how the Lord’s glory which dwelt at the Jerusalem temple would depart from that house and the city because of the wickedness and abominations of the people, shortly before its destruction (Ezekiel 10:4, 18).

The pillar of fire was manifest by night during the Exodus suggesting that Lehi experienced his first vision in the night as well. Bill Hamblin in his thoughtful notes on 1 Nephi has suggested that this may have happened as he prayed in the temple and that this was a temple theophany. What I find interesting, however, is that Lehi encounters the pillar of fire, “as he went forth” (1 Nephi 1:5) and after this experience “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1:7). That may indicate that Lehi's vision occurs somewhere outside Jerusalem to which he later returns. If so, the implications would be significant: The Lord’s glory, signified by the pillar of fire, had or would shortly depart leaving the unrepentant of the city and their temple to destruction.

Update on NHM in the Book of Mormon

For the last several decades Warren P. Aston has been a leading researcher on the question of Lehi's wilderness journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful in the Old World. For a recent article on his research see "A History of NaHoM," BYU Studies 51/2 (2012): 79-98.

Students of the Book of Mormon may be interested to know that he has just recently published another article "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past," Journal of Arabian Studies 4/1 (June 2014): 134-48.

More on Nahom

Neal Rappleye and Stephen Smoot have an article on minimalist efforts to downplay the identification of the site of Nahom over at Interpreter.

“I beheld. . . Rumors of Wars”: (Howlers # 23)

When Nephi had a vision of the future of his people before the time of Christ he wrote, “I beheld wars and rumors of wars” (1 Nephi 12:2). He later recounts the destruction of his people and the subsequent conflicts among the Lamanites, “And I saw wars among them; and in wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away” (1 Nephi 12:21). These references have been an object of ridicule since the publication of the Book of Mormon as the following comments show:

“I beheld wars and rumors of wars” . . . Beheld rumors!
               Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed, 1838, 20.

“And I saw wars and rumors of wars among them; and in wars, and rumors of wars, I saw many generations pass away.” The last quotation reminds me of the old lady who in a time of war remarked that they only had the wars then, “but wait,” said she, “until the rumors come”
           G. Stewart, “The Book of Mormon,” The Perfectionist, 15 May, 1843).

[Nephi] was not only a very “large” man, as we are told, but a very funny man I should say, for he cooly informs us that he saw “rumors of war!” so that, according to this professedly “inspired” book, eyes do the work of ears.
           J. B. Sweet, A Lecture on the Book of Mormon, 1857, 12.

The Book of Isaiah begins with the information that it is “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (Isaiah 1:1). The second chapter speaks of “the word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:1). Isaiah, however, speaks not only of what he sees, but what he hears. Motyer observes that the verb to see which is used in these passages can mean more than just to see. “All thirty-five occurrences of vision (hazon) and thirty-six out of forty-eight of saw (haza) refer to truth disclosed by God, not necessarily in visual experience” (J Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. InterVarsity Press, 1993, 41). 

In another study of this verb, which is rendered “seer” in our English translations of the Bible (Isaiah 30:9-10), Jeffers also notes that the term was not used exclusively of visual perception, “the hozeh `sees’ but he also `hears’ in a context where the reception of the word of God plays an important part” (Ann Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1996, 36). Likewise, since the verb has a broader meaning than visual experience, Nephi Seer of olden time could indeed “behold” not only wars, but rumors of wars, even though the English usage at first may seem strange.

Desert Naming Practices (Howlers # 22 )

“All the rivers and valleys he makes Lehi name with new names.”
    John Hyde Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (1857), 223.


[From Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (1988), 75-76].

By what right do these people rename streams and valleys to suit themselves? No westerner would tolerate such arrogance. But Lehi is not interested in western taste; he is following a good old Oriental custom. Among the laws "which no Bedouin would dream of transgressing," the first, according to Jennings-Bramley, is that "any water you may discover, either in your own territory or in the territory of another tribe, is named after you." So it happens that in Arabia a great wady (valley) will have different names at different points along its course, a respectable number of names being "all used for one and the same valley. . . . One and the same place may have several names, and the wadi running close to the same, or the mountain connected with it, will naturally be called differently by members of different clans," according to Canaan, who tells how the Arabs "often coin a new name for a locality for which they have never used a proper name, or whose name they do not know," the name given being usually that of some person. However, names thus bestowed by wandering tribesmen "are neither generally known or commonly used," so that we need not expect any of Lehi's place names to survive.

Speaking of the desert "below the Negeb proper," i.e., the general area of Lehi's first camp, Woolley and Lawrence report "peaks and ridges that have different names among the different Arab tribes, and from different sides," and of the nearby Tih Palmer says, "In every locality, each individual object, whether rock, mountain, ravine, or valley, has its appropriate name," while Raswan recalls how "miraculously each hill and dale bore a name." But how reliable are such names? Philby recounts a typical case: "Zayid and 'Ali seemed a little vague about the nomenclature of these parts, and it was only by the irritating process of continual questioning and sifting their often inconsistent and contradictory answers that I was able in the end to piece together the topography of the region." Farther east Cheesman ran into the same difficulty: "I pointed out that this was the third different hill to which he had given the same name. He knew that, was the reply, but that was how they named them."  The irresponsible custom of renaming everything on the spot seems to go back to the earliest times, and "probably, as often as not, the Israelites named for themselves their own camps, or unconsciously confounded a native name in their carelessness." Yet in spite of its undoubted antiquity, only the most recent explorers have commented on this strange practice, which seems to have escaped the notice of travelers until explorers in our own times started to make maps.

Even more whimsical and senseless to a westerner must appear the behavior of Lehi in naming a river after one son and its valley after another. But the Arabs don't think that way. In the Mahra country, for example, "as is commonly the case in these mountains, the water bears a different name from the wadi." Likewise we might suppose that after he had named the river after his first-born the location of the camp beside its waters would be given, as any westerner would give it, with reference to the river. Instead, the Book of Mormon follows the Arabic system of designating the camp not by the name of the river (which may easily dry up sometime), but by the name of the valley (1 Nephi 10:16; 16:6).

Timber at Old World Bountiful (Howlers # 21)

1 Nephi 18:1 indicates that the Jews make a ship from the ample timber in Arabia. The same objection applies here also. 

     Thomas Key, "A Biologist Examines the Book of Mormon," (1985), 1.

At this point Nephi is instructed to build a ship for passage into the New World, at a location probably more remote from shipbuilding timber than any place on the globe. 

     Gordon Fraser, What does the Book of Mormon Teach?, 1964, 37.


Recent research in southern Oman indicates that several kinds of wood were found in the region of Southern Oman that could have been used in building Nephi's ship.

Ore in Old World Bountiful (Howlers # 20)

Although the territory is one that in expanse is comparable to that portion of the United States lying between the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, yet in all that range of territory there has been no metal discovered that would be suitable for ship construction, except in the central part of the Sinaitic peninsula, either of which is hundreds of miles distant from the reputed spot where the vessel was built. And this fact goes far to strengthen the oft repeated assertion that the `author and proprietor’ of the Book of Mormon was illiterate.

     Samuel Traum, Mormonism Against Itself, 1910, 98.


Nephi indicates that after his family's arrival at Bountiful that the Lord commanded him to build a ship. "And I said: Lord, whither shall I go that I may find ore to molten, that I may make tools to construct the ship after the manner which thou hast shown unto me. And it came to pass that the Lord told me wither I should go to find ore, that I might make tools (1 Nephi 17:9-10).

I love the example of Nephi's faith. He does not ask the Lord to do that which he could do himself. Nephi is willing to work and make tools if he can only find the materials to do so.

The passage suggests that ore resources may not have been abundant, but that they were available nearby. This appears to fit the the Dhofar region in southern Oman, the proposed region for Old World Bountiful. Research, sponsored by Brigham Young university and FARMS over the last two decades has yielded evidence for iron ore that could have been used to make Nephi's tools, which you can read about here and here.

The Names Sam and Josh (Howlers # 17 and 18)

One of his brothers was a real Yankee–Sam! Well done, Prophet Smith; you can’t get rid of your Jonathanisms. Sam indeed! Fie, Joseph, how you forget yourself. Can’t you forge better than this? Precious little of Yankee wit, have you in your composition, to let a Yankeeism creep into the ancient `Book of Nephi’ in this manner. . . . `Sam, Josh, and Gid.’ . . . .There’s Yankee for ye. Rather out of place, however, in ancient writings . . . . Sam, Josh, and Gid, are half names, or Jonathanisms.

Origen Bachelor, Mormonism Exposed, Internally and Externally (New York: 1838), 11, 14.

Here is a boy six hundred years before Christ who has the unmistakable Yankee nickname for Samuel. There is certainly nothing Hebraistic about this name, nor does it sound like any Egyptian name we ever heard.

M. T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (1887), 218.

This name Sam, by the way, sounds very modern.

Edgar E. Folk, The Mormon Monster, or the Story of Mormonism (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1900), 186.

No Hebrew named his child "Sam" (v. 5). "Sam" is an American name, but not a Hebrew name.

Marvin Cowan, Mormon Claims Answered (1989), 39.



Both Sam and Josh are now known to be authentic Hebrew names attested in Hebrew inscriptions from before 587 B.C. only published in the last few decades. Both names are hypocoristic or abbreviated forms of Hebrew names which have dropped the theophoric element from the end (John Tvedtnes, John Gee and Matthew Roper, "Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/1 2000: 49-51. For more information on the names Sam, Josh and other Book of Mormon names researchers will want to consult the Willes Center's Onomasticon Project.

Naming in the Desert (Howlers # 13)

All the rivers and valleys he makes Lehi name with new names.
John Hyde Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (1857), 223.


From Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (1988), 75-76.

By what right do these people rename streams and valleys to suit themselves? No westerner would tolerate such arrogance. But Lehi is not interested in western taste; he is following a good old Oriental custom. Among the laws "which no Bedouin would dream of transgressing," the first, according to Jennings-Bramley, is that "any water you may discover, either in your own territory or in the territory of another tribe, is named after you." So it happens that in Arabia a great wady (valley) will have different names at different points along its course, a respectable number of names being "all used for one and the same valley. . . . One and the same place may have several names, and the wadi running close to the same, or the mountain connected with it, will naturally be called differently by members of different clans," according to Canaan, who tells how the Arabs "often coin a new name for a locality for which they have never used a proper name, or whose name they do not know," the name given being usually that of some person. However, names thus bestowed by wandering tribesmen "are neither generally known or commonly used," so that we need not expect any of Lehi's place names to survive.

Speaking of the desert "below the Negeb proper," i.e., the general area of Lehi's first camp, Woolley and Lawrence report "peaks and ridges that have different names among the different Arab tribes, and from different sides," and of the nearby Tih Palmer says, "In every locality, each individual object, whether rock, mountain, ravine, or valley, has its appropriate name," while Raswan recalls how "miraculously each hill and dale bore a name." But how reliable are such names? Philby recounts a typical case: "Zayid and 'Ali seemed a little vague about the nomenclature of these parts, and it was only by the irritating process of continual questioning and sifting their often inconsistent and contradictory answers that I was able in the end to piece together the topography of the region." Farther east Cheesman ran into the same difficulty: "I pointed out that this was the third different hill to which he had given the same name. He knew that, was the reply, but that was how they named them."  The irresponsible custom of renaming everything on the spot seems to go back to the earliest times, and "probably, as often as not, the Israelites named for themselves their own camps, or unconsciously confounded a native name in their carelessness." Yet in spite of its undoubted antiquity, only the most recent explorers have commented on this strange practice, which seems to have escaped the notice of travelers until explorers in our own times started to make maps.

Even more whimsical and senseless to a westerner must appear the behavior of Lehi in naming a river after one son and its valley after another. But the Arabs don't think that way. In the Mahra country, for example, "as is commonly the case in these mountains, the water bears a different name from the wadi." Likewise we might suppose that after he had named the river after his first-born the location of the camp beside its waters would be given, as any westerner would give it, with reference to the river. Instead, the Book of Mormon follows the Arabic system of designating the camp not by the name of the river (which may easily dry up sometime), but by the name of the valley (1 Nephi 10:16; 16:6).

No Fire and Raw Meat in the Desert (Howlers # 12)

It seems, with all their knowledge of the arts of the compass, they did not know enough to rub two pieces of wood or stone against each other to get fire.
Tyler Parsons, Mormon Fanaticism Exposed (1841), 11.

There was no lack of wood for fire in the wilderness, no lack of stones to smite together, but simply to prove to them that they are the Lord's special pets, he saves them the trouble of making fire by performing the prodigious miracle of making raw meat sweet and palatable.
         M. T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (1887), 61.


From Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (1988), 63-67.

The Book of Mormon makes no mention of Lehi's people meeting any other party in their eight years of wandering. Casual meetings with stray families of Bedouins then as now would merit no special attention, but how were they able to avoid any important contacts for eight years and some 2500 miles of wandering?

One illuminating "aside" by Nephi explains everything. It was only after they reached the seashore, he says, that his people were able to make fires without danger, "for the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not; and I will also be your light in the wilderness" (1 Nephi 17:12—13). That tells all. "I remember well," writes Bertram Thomas, "taking part in a discussion upon the unhealthiness of campfires by night; we discontinued them forthwith in spite of the bitter cold." Major Cheesman's guide would not even let him light a tiny lamp in order to jot down star readings, and they never dared build a fire on the open plain where it "would attract the attention of a prowling raiding party over long distances and invite a night attack." Once in a while in a favorably sheltered depression "we dared to build a fire that could not be seen from a higher spot," writes Raswan. That is, fires are not absolutely out of the question, but rare and risky—not much fire, was Lehi's rule. And fires in the daytime are almost as risky as at night: Palgrave tells how his party were forced, "lest the smoke of our fire should give notice to some distant rover, to content ourselves with dry dates," instead of cooked food.

So of course no fire means raw food. And what is one to do if one's diet is meat? "Throughout the Desert," writes Burckhardt, "when a sheep or goat is killed, the persons present often eat the liver and kidney raw, adding to it a little salt. Some Arabs of Yemen are said to eat raw not only those parts, but likewise whole slices of flesh; thus resembling the Abyssinians and the Druses of Libanon [sic], who frequently indulge in raw meat, the latter to my own certain knowledge." Nilus, writing fourteen centuries earlier, tells how the Bedouin of the Tih live on the flesh of wild animals, failing which "they slaughter a camel, one of their beasts of burden, and nourish themselves like animals from the raw meat," or else scorch the flesh quickly in a small fire to soften it sufficiently not to have to gnaw it "like dogs." Only too well does this state of things match the grim economy of Lehi: "They did suffer much for the want of food" (1 Nephi 16:19); "we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness" (1 Nephi 17:2).

All this bears out the conviction, supported both by modern experience and the evidence of archaeology, that Lehi was moving through a dangerous world. In ancient times Jewish merchants traveling through the desert fell so often into the hands of Bedouin raiders that by the beginning of the Christian era their word for "captor" normally meant simply "Arab"!  Arab inscriptions from Lehi's time show that "in the peninsula . . . there was constant unrest," even as in modern times. Ordinary times in the desert are bad times when, in the words of one of the oldest Arab poets, "the honored man did not dare stay in the open country, and flight did not save the coward." "A lonely life it is," writes Philby, ". . . a life of constant fear; . . . hunger is the rule of the desert." Hunger, danger, loneliness, fear—Lehi's people knew them all.

Just what was the danger? "The Arab tribes are in a state of almost perpetual war against each other. . . . To surprise the enemy by a sudden attack, and to plunder a camp, are chief objects of both parties."  "Raiding to them is the spice of life. . . . Might is right, and man ever walks in fear for his life and possessions." Lehi could ill afford to get embroiled in these perennial desert feuds, and yet he was everywhere a trespasser—the only way for him to stay out of trouble was to observe a rule which Thomas lays down for all travelers in the desert, even today: "An approaching party may be friend, but is always assumed to be foe." In the words of the ancient poet Zuhair, "He who travels should consider his friend an enemy." Nilus describes Bedouins on the march in the fifth century as possessed by the same jittery nervousness and unbearable tension that make the accounts of Cheesman, Philby, Thomas, Palgrave, Burckhardt, and the others such exciting reading: At the merest sign of an armed man, he says, his Bedu fled in alarm "as if seized by panic fear," and kept on fleeing, "for fear makes them exaggerate danger and causes them to imagine things far beyond reality, magnifying their dread in every instance."20 Just so their modern descendants "live always under the impression that an invasion is on the way, and every suspicious shadow or movement on the horizon calls their attention," according to the astute Baldensperger. This almost hysterical state of apprehension is actually a prime condition of survival in the desert: "A Bedawy never tells his name," says the writer just quoted, "nor his tribe, nor his business, nor the whereabouts of his people, even if he is in a friendly district. . . . They are and must be very cautious; . . . a word out of season may bring death and destruction." When the BanÄ« Hila-l migrate, it is "under the darkness of the night, under the obscuring veil of the rain," bypassing settled places in darkness and in silence. What can better describe such a state of things than the Book of Mormon expression, "a lonesome and a solemn people" (Jacob 7:26)? Doughty said he had never met a "merry" man among the Arabs—and there is no humor in the Book of Mormon. This mood is hardly accidental: if the Hebrew gets his brooding qualities from his desert ancestors, why not the Lamanite?

Sir Richard Burton, one of the few individuals who has ever known both the American Indian and Bedouin Arab at first hand, was greatly impressed by their exact resemblance to each other, a resemblance so striking that he must warn his reader against attributing it to a common origin, explaining the perfect paralleling of temperament and behavior as due to "the almost absolute independence" of their way of life. Yet many equally independent tribesmen in other parts of the world in no way resemble these two. One of the writer's best friends is a venerable but enterprising Lebanese, who has spent many years both among the Bedouins of the desert and the Indians of New Mexico as a peddler and trader; he avers that there is absolutely no difference between the two races so far as manners and customs are concerned. Arabs now living in Utah who have had some contact with Indians in the West, affirm the same thing with considerable emphasis. It is a nice problem for the sociologist, and the writer only mentions it because it has been brought to his attention innumerable times. There may be something to it.

Lehi's party, as we have noted, were like the Banī Hila-l trespassers wherever they walked. Every inch of the desert is claimed by some tribe or other that will demand the life of a trespasser. "Marked boundaries do not exist, and it is natural that questions of ownership should be settled by fighting, which becomes an annual affair, while the looting of camels grows into a habit," according to Cheesman. Hence the need for extreme caution and strict avoidance on Lehi's part: "In most cases," says Jennings-Bramley, "Arabs do not think it prudent to allow the raiders near enough to decide whether they are friendly or not," and he describes a typical meeting in the desert: "Both we and they were doing our best not to be seen." Of course this sort of thing leads to comic situations, ignoble panic, and ridiculous anticlimaxes, but in a game of life and death one simply can't take chances, and Lehi was playing for the highest stakes. And so we are left with the picture of a wandering band sticking glumly to themselves for years on end, which, impossible as it seems to us, is a normal thing in the desert wastes, where the touchy, dangerous, unsocial Bedouin takes his stand as one of the most difficult, challenging, and fascinating creatures on earth.

Irreantum and "Many Waters" (Howlers # 10)

"Irreantum, which being interpreted, is, many waters." . . . Proof of this, Mr. Nephi Mormon Moroni Rigdon Harris Cowdery Smith. Let us have the proof. Irreantum signifies a complete ass, nearer than anything else.

Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed Internally and Externally (1838), 14

Nephi says "We beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which being interpreted, is many waters" (1 Nephi 17:5). Nephi's wording suggests that this may not have been a name from his native language. Years ago Hugh Nibley suggested a possible Egyptian derivation for the name (Since Cumorah, 1988, 171-72), but his proposal has not persuaded other Latter-day Saint linguists. More recently John Gee, Paul Hoskisson and Brian Hauglid have argued, that the name does make sense as a South Semitic name meaning "watering of completeness" or "watering of (super)abundance" which is consistent with Nephi's interpretation of the name.

For a more complete discussion, see the Book of Mormon Onomasticon entry.

He shall be born at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers (Howlers #8)

In the previous post we saw how the phrase “land of Jerusalem” in the Book of Mormon, which was once derided by critics as an anachronism finds its equivalent in ancient Near Eastern texts, discovered long after the Book of Mormon was published and Joseph Smith was dead. In another early criticism skeptical readers cited the words of Alma’s prophecy to the people of of Gideon as even more problematic. Some eighty-three years before the birth of Christ, this pre-Columbian prophet said, “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). Few passages of the Book of Mormon have been the subject of more ridicule and it seems to be a favorite criticism even among critics of the Book of Mormon today. One blast from the past should be adequate.

“This prophet Smith . . . . is better skilled in the controversies in New York than in the geography of history of Judea. He makes John baptize in Bethabara, and says Jesus was born in Jerusalem.”

Alexander Campbell, “Delusions,” Millennial Harbinger, February 7, 1831): 93.

Latter-day Saints have often responded to this criticism (e.g. Robert F. Smith, “The Land of Jerusalem: The Place of Jesus’ Birth” in John W. Welch, Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 1992, 170-72). The most significant points in my view are these. Alma’s prophecy speaks of the “land” from which his forefathers came of which “Jerusalem,” the place where the ruling kings of Judah dwelt, was the political center in Lehi’s day. The Amarna letters show how the terms Jerusalem and land of Jerusalem could be used interchangeably, when Jerusalem is understood to be the political center that controls the surrounding land. The troubled writer of el-Amarna Letter 289 says, “And now as for Jerusalem behold this land belongs to the king”  (Prichard, The Ancient Near East, 1:273. Emphasis added), just as Alma speaks of “Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). In Lehi’s day, as well as in Jesus’ day, Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish people.

More significant, however, is that el-Amarna Letter 290 refers to "a town in the land of Jerusalem" with the Canaanite name Bît-Lahmi, which is, “an almost certain reference to the town of Bethlehem, which thus appears for the first time in history” (James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, 274, note 1). That is, Bethlehem, known to us as the place of Jesus’ birth, was considered by the ancient writer to have been a town belonging to Jerusalem, a town of the “land of Jerusalem,” which Alma’s prophecy can be taken to imply.

The “Land of Jerusalem” (Howlers #7)

“`The land of Jerusalem.’ . . . There is no such land. No part of Palestine bears the name Jerusalem, except the city itself.”

            Origen Bacheler, Mormonism Exposed Internally and Externally (1838), 14.

The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is a common phrase in the Book of Mormon and is used by prophets in the Book of Mormon to refer to the place of their original inheritance before their journey to a new land of promise (1 Nephi 2:11; 7:2; 7:7; 16:35; 17:20; 2 Nephi 1:1).Hugh Nibley and subsequent Latter day Saint scholars have shown that, while the phrase, “land of Jerusalem” is not found in the Bible, it does appear five times in the El Amarna Tablets, which date to the fourteenth century B.C. (Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 1988, 6-7),  as shown in the examples from El Amarna Letters 287  AND 287 and 290 below.

“Behold this land of Jerusalem . . .”

“[If] they send into the land [of Jerusalem] troops, let them come with an Egyptian officer”

“Let my king requisition for them much grain, much oil, (and) much clothing, until Pawure, the royal commissioner, comes up to the land of Jerusalem”

“Behold, the king has set his name in the land of Jerusalem for ever; so he cannot abandon the lands of Jerusalem!”

“But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah”

James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, 1:271-272, 274 emphasis added.

The Amarna tablets were not discovered until 1887, some fifty-seven years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

The phrase “land of Jerusalem” has more recently turned up in a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls attributed to the prophet Jeremiah (4Q385b).

[…and] Jeremiah the prophet [went] from before YHWH, [… the] exiles who were brought into exile from the land of Jerusalem and were led […] king of Babel, when Nabuzaradan, chief of the escort, struck […] … and he took the vessels of the temple of God, the priests [… and] the children of Israel and led them to Babylon.

Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (1998), 2:773.

Names and Meaning: Zoram as a Case Study

Neal Rappleye posted the following at Studio et Quoque Fide (reposted with permission):

Book of Mormon Onomasticon Project Launched Online

The Book of Mormon Onomasticon project, which has long been in the works, has finally been launched online. Although it is still under development, there is plenty of great information and research available already on every single name in the Book of Mormon. Many of the entries provide convenient summaries of the research that has gone into a Book of Mormon name. Some brief time browsing the entries will quickly make it apparent which names have received the most attention from scholars and which names need more work. In any event, it is a great new tool for Book of Mormon study.

Understanding the meaning of a name can shed light on the meaning of scripture, especially since scriptural names can be metonymic. That is, names more relevant to the actions or role of a person in a narrative may be substituted for that actual person’s name. Even in cases where a metonymic name is not in play, authors aware of the meaning of the name may have used it in some way to enhance the narrative. Such word plays on proper nouns are common in ancient Near Eastern literature.

Zoram: From “Servant of Laban” to “Rock of Nephi”

Consider the name Zoram. I chose this name because it has received very little attention from scholars. It was one of the first I looked up in the Book of Mormon Onomasticon (BMO) because, as the only name in the 1 Nephi narrative that has not been attested in ancient sources, I was interested in seeing what they had come up with. Hugh Nibley had suggested it meant something like “refreshing rain,” and William J. Hamblin has followed suit (from the Hebrew zerem). The BMO, however, suggests either Ṣûrām, “their rock,” or the hypothetical construct *Ṣûrʿām, “rock of the people.” I like this suggestion much better than the “rain” idea from Nibley and Hamblin because when I think about that meaning in light of the role Zoram plays in the narrative, it becomes more interesting.

Zoram is first introduced into the narrative simply as the “servant of Laban” (1 Nephi 4:20, 31, 33). It is not until he taking an oath wherein he is promised his freedom that his called by his name (1 Nephi 4:35). This might be significant. I suggest that this is a deliberate literary move made by Nephi, meant to convey his transition from bondage to freedom. At first he is known only as someone else’s, “the servant of Laban,” but after taking an oath which grants him his status as a free man, he becomes known by his own name, “Zoram.” In the narrative, it is almost as if he becomes Zoram upon taking the oath, like receiving a new name. If the name, as the BMO suggests, has the element “rock” in it, then the imagery of a now strong and mighty person, no longer a slave or servant could be conveyed by the choice to call him no longer the “servant” but by his name, Zoram. Since rock imagery can convey the idea of steadfastness, faithfulness, or reliability, it may be meant to convey his faithful commitment to the oath he was making. The meaning “their rock” might even be expressive of his relationship to his oath-givers. While he was granted status as a “free man” it was on the condition that he join their group, that he “go down into the wilderness with us” (1 Nephi 4:33). Thus in that sense, he was to become “their rock,” or their faithful and loyal companion. As Lehi is about to pass away, he speaks to Zoram and we find out that indeed, Zoram had become a “true friend” to Nephi, and Lehi is confident that he will be so “forever” (2 Nephi 1:30). Again, the imagery here is that of a rock – someone who is firm, faithful, and true forever. Zoram is the “rock of Nephi”, his ever loyal comrade.

Final Thoughts

These are, of course, only my fairly amateur ruminations and may not be connected to reality at all. But whether or not Ṣûrām/*Ṣûrʿām is really the underlying Hebrew of Zoram, thinking about the possible meaning of this name has given me a whole new way of reading his story in the Book of Mormon in light “rock” imagery that provides insights on freedom, strength, friendship, and loyalty. Right or wrong, it was worthwhile. And that is from just one name. Imagine what else can be gleaned as we seek out possible meanings of other names in the Book of Mormon. So go check out the Book of Mormon Onomsticon and see what treasures of hidden knowledge (see D&C 89:19) await you!

Laban’s Sword of “Most Precious Steel” (Howlers #5)

In his account of his encounter with Laban, an important official in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. Nephi states, “I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel” (1 Nephi 4:9). Nephi’s description of this weapon was long considered anachronistic:

“This is the earliest account of steel to be found in history.”

E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (1834), 25-26.   

“Laban’s sword was steel, when it is a notorious fact that the Israelites knew nothing of steel for hundreds of years afterwards. Who but as ignorant s person as Rigdon would have perpetrated all these blunders?” 

Clark Braden in Public Discussion, 1884, 109.

“Laban is represented as killed by one Nephi, some six hundred years before Christ, with a sword `of the most precious steel,’ hundreds of years before steel was known to man!”

Daniel Bartlett, The Mormons or, Latter-day Saints (1911), 15.         

                                   

“[The Book of Mormon] speaks of the most `precious steel,’ before the commonest had been dreamt of.”

C. Sheridan Jones, The Truth about the Mormons (1920), 4-5.   

“Nephi . . . wielded a sword `of the most precious steel.’ But steel was not known to man in those days.”

Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (1920), 44.  

“Laban had a steel sword long before steel came into use.”

George Arbaugh, Revelation in Mormonism (1932), 55.  

“Every commentator on the Book of Mormon has pointed out the many cultural and historical anachronisms, such as the steel sword of Laban in 600 B.C.”

Thomas O’Dea, The Mormons (1957), 39.   

“No one believes that steel was available to Laban or anyone else in 592 B.C.”

William Whalen, The Latter-day Saints in the Modern World (1964), 48.

Today, the cutting remarks of  past critics notwithstanding, it is increasingly apparent that the practice of hardening iron through deliberate carburization, quenching and tempering was well known to the ancient world from which Nephi came "It seems evident” notes one recent authority, “that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron."  (Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly and Tamara S. Wheeler, “How the Iron Age Began,” Scientific American 237/4 [October 1977]:127).

Archaeologists, for example, have discovered evidence of sophisticated iron technology from the island of Cyprus. One interesting example was a curved iron knife found in an eleventh century tomb. Metallurgist Erik Tholander analyzed the weapon and found that it was made of “quench-hardened steel.” Other examples are known from Syro-Palestine. For example, an iron knife was found in an eleventh century Philistine tomb showed evidence of deliberate carburization.  Another is an iron pick found at the ruins of an fortress on Mount Adir in northern Galilee and may date as early as the thirteenth century B.C. “The manufacturer of the pick had knowledge of the full range of iron-working skills associated with the production of quench hardened steel” (James D. Muhly, “How Iron technology changed the ancient world and gave the Philistines a military edge,” Biblical Archaeology Review 8/6 [November-December 1982]: 50).

According to Amihai Mazar this implement was “made of real steel produced by carburizing, quenching and tempering.”  (Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990, 361).

More significant, perhaps, in relation to the sword of Laban, archaeologists have discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of king Josiah, who would have been a contemporary of Lehi. This find has been described as "spectacular" since it is apparently "the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel."(Hershall Shanks, “Antiquities director confronts problems and controversies,” Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 [July-August 1986]: 33, 35).

Today the sword is displayed at Jerusalem's Israel Museum. For a photo of the sword see here.

The sign on the display reads:

This rare and exceptionally long sword, which was discovered on the floor of a building next to the skeleton of a man, dates to the end of the First Temple period. The sword is 1.05 m. long (!) and has a double edged blade, with a prominent central ridge running along its entire length.

The hilt was originally inlaid with a material that has not survived, most probably wood. Only the nails that once secured the inlays to the hilt can still be seen. The sword's sheath was also made of wood, and all that remains of it is its bronze tip. Owing to the length and weight of the sword, it was probably necessary to hold it with two hands. The sword is made of iron hardened into steel, attesting to substantial metallurgical know-how. Over the years, it has become cracked, due to corrosion.

Such discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing comment in the Book of Mormon.