The Takeaway

Roper continues his examination of claimed Book of Mormon anachronisms, this time looking at 34 names included the text that have drawn criticism over the years. He concludes that 55% of these anachronistic names have received subsequent confirmation, with only 10 names partially confirmed and 5 that have yet to trend toward confirmation (Ether, Jonas, Timothy, Com, and Kim).

The Summary

In this article, Matthew Roper presents the fifth chapter of his book, Anachronisms: Accidental Evidence in Book of Mormon Criticisms, this one focusing on names in the Book of Mormon. Though as many as 34 such names have been labelled at one point or another as anachronistic, many of them have since been directly confirmed in Near East inscriptions, often in Hebrew or Egyptian or have been partially confirmed by the identification of plausible (and occasionally meaningful) etymologies. Some representative highlights include:

• Inscriptional Evidence (Confirmed). This includes the name hypocoristic names like Sam, which is attested in both ancient Egyptian and Hebrew (specifically in the northern dialect of Hebrew that Lehi could’ve spoken), and has been found on a ring seal dating to the 7^th century BC. The name Josh is also attested in multiple finds, as is Sheum, an ancient Mesopotamian word for grain. Onidah has also been attested, with a Hebrew meaning of “he knows (my) affliction”, with affliction being an important part of the Zoramite account, as have Nephi (with an Egyptian meaning of “good” or “fair”, with notable wordplays in many passages), Alma (attested in a land deed, with a root meaning “hide” or “conceal, also with notable wordplays), Mormon (meaning “love is established”, with yet further wordplay), Deseret (an Egyptian word used as a symbol for “bee”), Jarom.
  
• Plausible Etymologies (Confirmed for some, Partially Confirmed for others). Roper cites plausible etymologies or forms for the names Gid; Neas; Ziff (potentially related to the Hebrew ziw, meaning “glow” or “shine”; or the Arabic zyf, applied to ancient metals); Moroni; Zeniff; Omni (plausibly meaning “The Lord is my trust”); Mosiah (meaning “The Lord is a savior”); and Helaman (plausibly derived from a root meaning “strong, robust” or “seer/visionary”.

• Meaningful Etymologies (Confirmed for some; Partially Confirmed for others). In addition to finding plausible etymologies for specific names, some scholars (particularly Matthew Bowen) have found those names have meaning that align with how those names are used in the text or that could have been employed in wordplay. These include Giddianhi (a name associated with a Gadianton robber and denotes “oath” or “to swear”); Gadianton (may have been used in wordplay on the Hebrew word gedud, meaning “robber”); money names (e.g., limnah, shiblon; many of the book’s money-related names have meaningful connections to Hebrew or Egyptian words for money, gold, or payment); Rameumptom (connected to ram, a Hebrew element meaning “high”); Liahona (plausibly meaning “Look to the Lord!”; Irreantum (South Arabian for “place of abundant watering”, aligning with Nephi’s gloss of “many waters”); Shazer (meaning “young Gazelle”, fitting well in a hunting context); Zarahemla (a compound word meaning “seed of compassion”, utilized in numerous examples of wordplay); and Anti (potentially meaning “partisan of Nephi and Lehi” consistent with a group that allies themselves with the Nephites).

• Unconfirmed Names. The names Com, Kim, Jonas (with one caveat), Timothy, and Ether remain unconfirmed in the linguistic record.
  

The Reflection

This chapter was a great way to incorporate Matthew Bowen’s prolific work on Book of Mormon wordplay. Though it’s possible for that wordplay to occur on the basis of chance alone, the depth it adds to the Book of Mormon text–and to Roper’s specific case–is difficult to deny. We didn’t just find new evidence across decades that helped support the Book of Mormon, that evidence made the Book of Mormon better and more interesting, and in ways that could be scarcely imagined in 1830. It’s also worth noting that we shouldn’t expect linguistic perfection out of names from languages that we know would have shifted over centuries or mixed on contact with local languages.