Abstract: The Book of Mormon contains many words left untranslated by Joseph Smith, such as cureloms, cumoms, senine, and ziff. While some might wonder why these words are left untranslated, a closer examination of the kinds of words that are simply transliterated as well as the frequency at which these phenomena occur provide evidence that Joseph Smith actually had an ancient record that he was translating into English. In this paper, I examine why some words have been transliterated in historical translations of the Bible or other ancient texts and compare these explanations to the Book of Mormon. In the end, I show that the Book of Mormon consistently transliterates the same types of words typically left untranslated in other works in ways that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith.

In the Book of Mormon, it is reported that the Jaredites had tamed multiple animals. These are mentioned in a brief list: “And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms” (Ether 9:19). It is generally accepted by Latter-day Saint scholars that the words cureloms and cumoms are transliterations of words on the Book of Mormon plates. They may have been provided by Moroni₂, Mosiah₂, or by Joseph Smith, none of whom had any functionally equivalent words in their languages to designate these animals.¹ Furthermore, while perhaps [Page 122]some of the most enigmatic examples, these are far from the only transliterations in the Book of Mormon. Multiple words are left untranslated in the text with no explanation ever given for this process by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The presence of transliterations may be surprising to readers who assume that the Book of Mormon, translated by the gift and power of God, should, by nature, provide clear English terms throughout the text. However, this assumption is reading something into the text that is not there, and a close look at the transliterated words of the Book of Mormon will show that their presence is fitting for a translation of an ancient text where certain words do not have clear meaning to the translator. Translators can face various challenges when determining whether or not to translate some words. These challenges are,

1. the low frequency at which the words appear in the text,
2. the general fact that not all words, especially technical terms, have a one-to-one correlation with words used in different cultures, and
3. the fact that rare animal or plant names can be a particular source of confusion when translating ancient texts.

Frequency of Untranslated Words

Untranslated words may generally reflect rare or unusual words in the source text. One example of these rare words would be hapax legomena, or “words (other than proper names) which occur only once” in the text.² This is especially true of the Book of Mormon, in which various hapax legomena are present, such as the words sheum and neas (Mosiah 9:9). Other untranslated words in the Book of Mormon, including ziff (Mosiah 11:3, 8), cureloms, and cumoms, could technically be categorized as dis legomena, that is, words that occur only twice in a given text. However, since these words occur in such close proximity to one another (and, for cureloms and cumoms, even in the same sentence), the same challenges of translating these words apply.

Hapax legomena are by nature difficult to translate, and most [Page 123]biblical scholars will turn to other instances in texts of the same language and cognate words in other languages to better understand the intended meaning of the words in question. While they can generally find success in doing so, there are still a myriad of issues when trying to identify how incidents of hapax legomena should be translated.

Emmanuel Tov observes that the ancient translators of the Septuagint refrained from translating many unfamiliar words. These typically fell into one of four groupings: proper nouns, technical words, common nouns mistaken as proper nouns, or “words probably unknown to the translator, which thus remained untranslated. All these are either hapax legomena or very rare.”³ This could be true for “hapax legomena in the Bible or in the book under consideration.”⁴

Furthermore, Tov elsewhere notes that “there is no certainty about the reason for the transliteration of a given Hebrew word, that is, whether it was transliterated because it was unknown to the translator or because of other reasons. However, it stands to reason that the former was the case when the Hebrew word is a hapax legomenon,” citing cases such as those in Genesis 36:24, Judges 8:7, 1 Kings 5:25, 2 Kings 8:15, and 1 Chronicles 21:20.⁵ Elsewhere, Tov provides a more complete list of untranslated words, including those done so because of their rare occurrence.⁶

While proper names are typically not classified as hapax legomena, a similar phenomenon of transliterating, rather than translating, personal names occurs as well. This was true anciently, but also especially since the Medieval period. However, some names (typically place names) were translated anciently to better convey the meaning of the text. In the Book of Mormon, this could explain some potential place names which may have been translated from a Jaredite to a Nephite language (e.g. the Mount Shelem or Heshlon). While personal or place names will not be discussed further in this paper, they can [Page 124]provide some insight into this practice overall, but they must be considered separately.⁷

As will be seen, other factors regarding the complexities of translating some hapax legomena also need to be considered with the Book of Mormon. However, the overall rarity of these words is one of the first factors to keep in mind when considering the translation process of the Book of Mormon.

Untranslated Technical Terms

Second, many of these untranslated words refer to technical terms found in the Book of Mormon and consists of a system of weights and measures, measurements of grains, or a specialized type of metal. These words include senine, seon, shum, limnah, senum, amnor, ezrom, onti, shiblon, shiblum, leah, and antion. These words are also rare, only occurring a handful of times in a list of weights and measures in Alma 11:3–19 or a brief reference in Mosiah 9:9 and could also be explained as transliterations based on their low frequency alone. The challenge of translating these words is further compounded when it is considered that these technical terms would have mostly been known to the Nephite culture and not a nineteenth-century American setting. The word ziff, apparently a type of metal, would also fit into this classification, as well as the words Liahona, Rameumptom, and Gazelem.

As with hapax legomena, transliterating technical terms was also typical among the Septuagint translators “because no adequate renderings could be found by the translators.”⁸ Significantly, this also involved transliterating weights and measures but no real consistency is shared between individual words. “Hence,” Tov notes, “a certain word may be transliterated in one translation unit, while translated in others. Moreover, even within the individual translation units there is no consistency with regard to the treatment of individual technical terms.”⁹ [Page 125]The weights and measures often transliterated in the Septuagint included an ʾēpāh (איפה),¹⁰ hîn (הין),¹¹ ḥōmer (חמר),¹² kōr (כר),¹³ and ʿōmer (עמר).¹⁴ While occasionally translated into measurements that would have been familiar to Greek-speaking Jews outside of Israel, the presence of these transliterations shows that there was often a reticence to provide one-to-one translations for technical terms.¹⁵ This is yet evident in later Bible translations, which typically (but not always) leave these words untranslated, including modern translations. It should thus be no surprise that the Book of Mormon’s senine, senum, onti, and so forth are all likewise untranslated technical terms.¹⁶

Other technical terms that are left untranslated may not refer to a system of weights and measures or even an unknown metal. This is true of the Bible as well as other ancient texts. For example, some translators of the New Testament leave words such as logos or kosmos untranslated given the complexities each word offers that does not offer a clean one-to-one translation.¹⁷ Regarding the word logos specifically, which David Bentley Hart leaves untranslated in his New Testament, Hart notes that this word,

in certain special instances [such as John’s prologue] is quite impossible for a translator to reduce to a single word in English. . . . The word is so capacious in its meanings and [Page 126]associations that it must be accounted unique; any attempt to limit it to a single English term would be to risk reducing it to a conceptual phantom of itself.¹⁸

This is not unique to the Bible, either. Gene Reeves, in a translation of the Lotus Sutra, notes that the word dharma does not equate well with a simple English translation and chose to leave the word untranslated—using similar reasoning as Hart for this choice.¹⁹

While not a weight or measure, or even a technical theological term such as logos or dharma, the words ziff or Rameumptom could also either be considered technical terms in their own right or words Tov identified as common nouns mistaken as proper nouns.²⁰ Ziff, for instance, is only mentioned twice in the Book of Mormon and only in the context of King Noah’s taxes (see Mosiah 11:3, 8). It likely referred to a type of metal, perhaps an alloy, named for its lustrous properties that was unknown to Joseph Smith, thus meriting a transliteration.²¹

A potential example of a common noun mistaken as a proper noun appears to be Rameumptom.²² This word is recorded as the name of a place of worship only located once in the text (Alma 31:21). Furthermore, it is introduced specifically as a Zoramite word, and Mormon provides an interpretive gloss, something usually done to indicate it is a word foreign to the author (i.e. Mormon). Furthermore, we know that the Zoramites continued to exist following Alma₂’s mission, and their wars with the Nephites, and even spread from their city of Antionum to other Lamanite-controlled lands (see, for example, Alma 43:4–5, Alma 48:4–6, 3 Nephi 1:29). It is likely that, when they did so, they built other “holy stands” or Rameumptoms, just as the Amalekites had their synagogues built for their own worship services (see Alma 21:4). As readers of a Nephite history, however, we are only introduced [Page 127]to this word during the moment that Zoramite religious practices are pertinent to Mormon’s record as he contrasts true and false worship.

Two other proper nouns are worth mentioning, namely Liahona and Gazelem. These words are likely left untranslated because they are actually proper names of specific items, much like the name Urim and Thummim is generally left untranslated in modern Bibles. In the case of Gazelem, it is also potentially even the name of a prophet. If this is the case, the previously noted phenomenon of some ancient writers translating a foreign name for people or places into their own language might help explain Gazelem as a Nephite translation of an originally Jaredite name.²³ Potential origins of the term Liahona have also been considered by authors such as Loren Spendlove, Matthew Bowen, Calvin Tolman, Jonathan Cursi, and by the contributors of the Book of Mormon Onomasticon.²⁴

In either case, whether we are dealing with weights and measures or names of places of worship, the presence of these words as transliterations would be natural if the Book of Mormon were actually a translation of an ancient text. What strengthens the presence of the transliterations of these technical terms, moreover, is the fact that each of them has promising etymologies regarding Old World languages that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith.

[Page 128]Untranslated Names of Rare Animals and Plants

Finally, a third consideration of transliterations which can help explain some transliterations is that in addition to being hapax legomena, there are some animals and plants that have no clear textual clues to determine their identities. These include the words sheum, neas, deseret, and the enigmatic cureloms and cumoms.

The inability to easily translate the names of rare animals is a feature of translations that has been noted by several scholars with regards to the Bible and other ancient texts. For example, as noted by Sagit Butbul, “Hapax legomena in general, and the nomenclature of fauna and flora in particular, are notoriously hard to identify. This alone suffices to account for the difficulties encountered by translators with these words.”²⁵ The problems of translating animals that are also hapax legomena are further compounded when the original language is lost. Even with biblical Hebrew, Butbul observes that it became primarily written and read, and was no longer used in everyday life. As a result, “referents of many nouns, such as the nomenclature of fauna, were forgotten.”²⁶ Because of this, many early translators of the Hebrew Bible refrained from translating the names of some animals into other languages. This can be seen, for example, in the Peshitta, an early translation of the Bible into Syriac for Christians in the Near East. Many historical translations have attempted to identify specific animals, while others have refrained from translating them with any certainty to avoid misidentification; this is especially applicable for those who abstain from eating fowl to avoid accidentally breaking a dietary law.²⁷

A similar ambiguity appears in the Mishnah Bikkurim, which refers to an animal called a koy that is rarely mentioned elsewhere. According to this Mishnah,

There are ways in which it is like a wild animal, and there are ways in which it is like a domesticated animal; and there are ways in which it is like [both] a domesticated animal and a [Page 129]wild animal; and there are ways in which it is like neither a domesticated animal nor a wild animal.²⁸

This ambiguous identification has often led to the koy being untranslated since different interpreters have debated whether the animal should be considered a deer, goat, or hybrid animal.²⁹ It is therefore impossible to translate because no clear identity can be given for this animal. This is not unlike Reeves’s translation of the Lotus Sutra, which also leaves the name of the asura (a mythological creature) untranslated.³⁰

The words sheum and neas are clearly types of plants and most likely types of grain, listed alongside corn, wheat, and barley (Mosiah 9:9). While it is unclear what type of grain each plant was, there are convincing etymologies for either derived from Akkadian (alongside a potential New World etymology for sheum). Ricks et al. consider the possibility that these were originally Jaredite words adopted by the Mulekites and then later by the Nephites. If this is the case, it is therefore possible that Mormon (separated by enough time and space from the Zeniffite usage of this term) was unfamiliar with these terms and opted to leave them as transliterated plant names.³¹

Another word connected to the Jaredites with clear Old-World origins is deseret, for which a gloss of “honey bee” is offered (Ether 2:3). Some scholars, including Hugh Nibley, have suggested that this word derives from the Egyptian dšr.t, “the name given to Upper Egypt, whose symbol was the bee.”³² This would have likely been introduced [Page 130]by Moroni₂ or Mosiah₂ as they translated the Jaredite text. If this is the case, it is possible that the gloss “honey bee” utilized a more familiar word to Nephite audiences. It is also possible (as Kevin L. Barney has argued) that the word derives from the Hebrew word for bee, děbôrāh (דבורה), utilizing an archaic feminine ending. This would render the word děbôrāt (דבורת).³³ It would be possible that the closest approximation of Reformed Egyptian could be the sign for dšr.t, with a gloss provided as a contextual clue to help readers understand this choice.

It is also likely that the curelom and cumom of Ether 9:19 likewise fit this pattern of untranslatable animal names. It appears these animals were unknown to Moroni₂ or Mosiah₂. While it is possible that these animals had since become extinct when the Jaredite record was translated by the Nephite prophet, such can only be conjecture. What can be said with certainty, however, is that these represented Jaredite words for which the Nephite translator simply had no point of reference.³⁴

Furthermore, while some apparently untranslated words in the Book of Mormon, such as the technical words mentioned above, may be comparable to other Old or New World languages, Book of Mormon readers are disadvantaged in a way not typical to the hapax legomena of the Bible when it comes to these two animals: there are no convincing cognate words that we can confidently connect [Page 131]with these terms from a long-lost Jaredite language, whose grammar and origin are still shrouded in mystery. Stephen D. Ricks, Paul Y. Hoskisson, Robert F. Smith, and John Gee have thus stated that “no etymology may be proposed” for either.³⁵ This is the case despite creative attempts to find a Hebrew etymology for curelom and cumom by some readers in the past.³⁶

This same principle can be seen in another inspired translation that was carried out by the Prophet Joseph Smith. In his translation of the Bible between in 1830–1833, one verse contains a single yet significant change that could help explain Joseph’s role as a translator of an ancient text in the context mentioned above. The King James Version of Isaiah 34:7 reads, “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls.” The word unicorn is something of a translational anachronism though, as it typically now refers to a Celtic mythological creature rather than the wild cattle the Hebrew originally implied.³⁷ Joseph apparently recognized that this word did [Page 132]not adequately describe the animal in question, and, not knowing how else to translate this, instead elected to transliterate the Hebrew word, likely with Sidney Rigdon’s help:³⁸ “And the re-em shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls” (Isaiah 34:7 JST).³⁹

While the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible differs from Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon, both were clearly dependent upon revelation and inspiration.⁴⁰ In both cases, Joseph Smith came across an animal name that was unfamiliar to him and he did not have an English word to adequately capture the intended meanings of either. Instead of attempting to guess what the animal may have been, Joseph instead opted to transliterate the word, which is what one would expect regarding translated texts. Even if Moroni₂ or Mosiah₂ were the first to transliterate these unfamiliar Jaredite words, the principle is still the same, as he likewise dealt with a text originally written in a foreign language and would have potentially met the same challenges that Joseph Smith would face centuries later.

[Page 133]Conclusion

While it is possible to understand the Book of Mormon without knowing how much a senine truly weighed or what a cumom actually was, it is understandable why some readers might assume that the divine translation process used to produce the Book of Mormon would allow some words, for reasons unknown, to remain untranslated. I believe that these words rather clarify that, while Joseph was certainly relying on divine power to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon remains a translation, given to Joseph Smith “in [his] weakness, after the manner of [his] language, that [he] might come to understanding” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). As such, the Book of Mormon reflects details typical of a translated text in which the translator did his best to share the original intent of the text in his native language but was left with some words that of necessity could not be adequately translated into English.

This is especially clear when the former cases are studied in their context. As has been shown, the Book of Mormon consistently provides the same types of transliterations expected of a translation of an ancient text. This conclusion is only strengthened when the words are themselves considered as remnants of a lost language, as most (with the Jaredite words being the exception) have clear links to Old World languages that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith had left these untranslated words in as a red herring to make his claims to have translated an ancient record more believable, it would be inconceivable to get so many details consistently right. As John A. Tvedtnes described this, “If it had been written by Joseph Smith, such untranslated words, especially ones that correlate closely with ancient Old World languages wholly unknown to Joseph Smith, would almost certainly have been absent.”⁴¹ Because this is not the case, it would appear that the untranslated words in the Book of Mormon provide better clues into its nature as an ancient book in both how the words are used and how often they appear in the text.

[Page 134][Author’s Note: I would like to thank Allen Hansen for providing me with some sources used throughout this paper, and most especially those relating to the Mishnah and Talmud.]