Interpreting Interpreter: (Non-)Anachronisms – Animals

The Takeaway

Roper introduces a book outlining past criticisms of the Book of Mormon and how they have fared in the light of new historical and archaeological evidence. In his first chapter on claims regarding the book’s descriptions of animals, he finds that 82% of these criticized claims have since been confirmed and an additional 14% are trending toward confirmation, based either on new evidence of the presence of these animals in the Americas or through the identification of loan-shifts used by early European settlers.

The Summary

In a set of two initial articles, Matthew Roper introduces the fruits of his now several-decade-long study of claimed Book of Mormon anachronisms, and then analyzes claims regarding the book’s descriptions of animals. After discussing what he means by an “anachronism” (i.e., as items in the text that have, at one point or another, been claimed to be “odds with known facts or widely held assumptions about the ancient world”), he notes the potential significance of these anachronisms, as framed by Hugh Nibley:

“It is the ‘howlers’ with which the Book of Mormon abounds that furnish the best index of its authenticity. They show, first of all, that the book was definitely not a typical product of its time, and secondly, when they are examined more closely in the light of present-day evidence, they appear very different indeed than they did a hundred years ago.”

Roper’s purpose is not to address every piece of evidence which might be brought forward in relation to the Book of Mormon and its ancient claims, nor is it to end all discussion of claims that he feels the evidence now supports or to express favor for specific geographical models. It is instead simply to see “how well alleged anachronisms themselves have held up over time”. His method for doing so involved a review of over 1,000 critical sources printed since 1830, with the anachronisms they cite organized into eight categories, including animals, ancient warfare, metals and metallurgy, ancient culture, proper names, wilderness journeys; records, writing and language; and natural phenomena. The chapter for each category includes details of the allegation, a categorization of its status (with the Book of Mormon’s textual features “confirmed”, “partially confirmed” or “unconfirmed” by the available evidence), and a set of charts summarizing the anachronisms in that category and their status over time.

Roper goes on to analyze claims regarding the following Book of Mormon animals:

• Horses
  (Confirmed to be contemporary with man in pre-Columbian times and as part of Indigenous traditions; Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). Some early critics claimed that horses could not be found in the Americas at any point prior to Columbus, but the fossil record is placing evidence of horses increasingly closer to Book of Mormon timeframes.

• Asses
  (Unconfirmed in Indigenous traditions, but Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). As with horses, critics once claimed that the ass could not be found in the Americas prior to Columns, but smaller species of horse, which might have been considered an ass by Book of Mormon peoples, have been found with material dated as late as 1300-1240 BC in Mexico.

• Cows
  (Confirmed as a loan shift). Early critics claimed that cows were not present before Columbus, let alone in Book of Mormon times, but early European settlers sometimes referred to the bison as “cow”, and it remains the proper term for female bison, suggesting that the term may have been applied as a loan shift to the bison present in various areas of North America (despite questions about the extent of their range).

• Oxen
  (Confirmed as a loan shift). In keeping with the broad assumptions of early critics, it was believed that there were no oxen prior to Columbus. As “oxen” can refer to both domesticated bovines or a variety of wild animals, including 18^th century references to bison, the same bison-related loan shift could have been applied.

• Cattle
  (Confirmed). As with the above equines and bovines, critics have claimed that there were no pre-Columbian cattle. However, “Hebrew words rendered as cattle by translators can refer to any large or small quadrupeds”, and thus may have been applied any number of four-legged animals raised and used for food (e.g., deer, peccary).

• Goats & Wild Goats (Confirmed as a loan shift). Though species of goats in the Americas appear to have gone extinct prior to Book of Mormon times, Early Spanish observers characterized certain species of Mesoamerican deer as “goats” and “wild goats”.
  
• Sheep
  (Confirmed). Critics have claimed a lack of pre-Columbian sheep, but mountain sheep ranged extensively across North America in pre-Columbian times, and are recorded as having been used as ritual food in central Mexico as late as 900AD.

• Flocks and Herds (Confirmed). In connection with claims regarding sheep, critics have suggested that the terms “flocks” and “herds” were anachronistic. In addition to evidence of mountain sheep, there are a number of other animals in pre-Columbian America that could have formed domesticated flocks and herds, whether that be the quadrupeds noted above (as suggested by the potential underlying Hebrew) or flocks of birds and fowl.
  
• Elephants
  (Confirmed to be contemporary with man in pre-Columbian times; Partially Confirmed in Book of Mormon times). Critics have similarly claimed that there were no elephants at any point in the Americas before Columbus, but fossil evidence continues to extend the pre-Columbian timeframe for mammoths of various kinds, with the most recent finds currently dating to 3985BC.

• Swine
  (Confirmed as a loan shift). The Book of Mormon use of the term “sow” has been interpreted by critics as a reference to swine, of which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America. But New World peccaries closely resemble pigs, were often named as such by the Spanish, and were an important meat source in ancient Mesoamerica, suggesting a plausible loan shift.

• Honeybees
  (Confirmed). Some have claimed that there were no pre-Columbian honeybees, but stingless honeybees were well known in early Mesoamerica.

• Lions
  (Confirmed as a loan shift). Early critics claimed that lions have never been in the Americas, and these were apparently unfamiliar with the far-ranging cougar] (Rise and Shout!), which, given the common appellation of “mountain lion”, could have clearly served as a loan shift.

• Wild Animals
  (Confirmed). At least one ambitious critic claimed that there references to “wild animals” was an anachronism. It was not.

• Moths
  (Confirmed). Another critic claimed that there were no pre-Columbian moths. He was wrong.

• Dragons
  (Confirmed). Some have suggested that the term “dragon” was inappropriate to apply to any animal in the Americas. References to dragon are biblical and were applied in a symbolic and fictional way, and ancient Mesoamericans used reptilian caiman in a similarly symbolic fashion, with scholars referring to depictions of caiman as dragons.

• Chickens
  (Confirmed). Some have claimed there were no pre-Columbian chickens. Though chickens were indeed present, “chicks” can refer to the young of any domesticated bird, and could also refer to the domesticated turkeys of early Mesoamerica.

• Dogs
  (Confirmed). Critics have claimed that there were no dogs in ancient America. Not only were there coyotes and wolves, but domestic dogs have been found in “virtually every site in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica”.

• Strange Snake Behavior (Confirmed). The idea that serpents could migrate into human-occupied areas en-masse during a famine has been “dismissed as ridiculous”. But this behavior was been noted anciently by the Greeks and Romans, and causes similar disruptions in modern times.
  

All told, as of 2024, a sizable majority of the Book of Mormon’s animal-related claims (82%) have been confirmed. Only a few seemingly anachronistic animals remain (horses, asses, and elephants), and those claims are trending toward confirmation as well.

The Reflection

I’ve been waiting for this book for a long time, and it’s great to see Roper’s analysis enter the formal light of day. The trajectory of confirmation it suggests was one of the two “critical strikes” I identified in my Bayesian analysis of Book of Mormon evidence. Any one of the Book’s seemingly anachronistic claims being overturned may not be a big deal—some of these critics appear not to have been the sharpest tacks in the box. But taken in aggregate, we would definitely not expect new evidence to side with the Book of Mormon, over and over again, to the tune of dozens of confirmed claims. What Roper will be presenting in Interpreter over the next few weeks should turn the head of any honest skeptic.

As is always the case, one could quibble with how the analysis is organized. Keeping track of the critics’ claims rather than the book’s means he ends up with several non-independent anachronisms for, say, horses and asses. This gives the appearance that the stats are being padded a bit, potentially in the Book of Mormon’s favor. They’re not, really—if, by my casual count, you get rid of seemingly redundant listings for horses, elephants, asses, goats, sheep, and cattle (and remove the “wild animals” one as a bit wrong-headed on the part of the critic), 11 out of the 14 animal-related claims (79%) are confirmed, only a smidge less than the 82% Roper cites. And tracking the charges of the critics separately makes it easier to see how those claims have changed over time as they’ve retreated into increasingly smaller Mottes, which is at least half the point of what Roper’s doing. (Though it would’ve been nice to have the specific years when confirmation took place listed, or at least estimated, so I wouldn’t have to go combing through the sources to figure it out.)

And before the "tapir crowd" gets going, yes, loan shifts are absolutely valid in this context, especially when the early Europeans themselves applied the loan shift. Loan shifts are just a fact of life for the kind of migration and language contact the Book of Mormon describes. The Lehites and Jaredites would’ve used them—the only questions are where and for what animal, and speculation will unavoidably remain for both (including for ones where loan shifts weren’t used). Regardless, Roper’s next chapter on ancient warfare should be exciting stuff, and I’ll look forward to drafting a few dozen well-earned links in its service.