My friend and fellow time traveler Pyrrho of Elis has given some cogent remarks on why we, Legion, remain anonymous (or, more precisely, pseudonymous).
There is just one additional point I would like to add.
It is ideal for peer review to be double-blind to ensure that the review remains about the quality of arguments and not the individual authors. John Dehlin’s essays are anonymous, and so are our reviews, thus upholding this important standard.
We are confident that John Dehlin’s fanbase at Reddit will understand.
While there certainly are legitimate issues worth discussing about the Book of Mormon and archaeology, Dehlin’s essay on the subject is full of things that simply are not true. Take, for instance, this paragraph about the cimeter (more commonly spelled scimitar today):
Cimeter: The curved, bladed weapon, mentioned 3 times in the Book of Mormon, originated with the Ottoman empire in the 9th Century. Not only is it an Asian word for blade, it’s also made of anachronistic steel. It remains unknown how Lehi would be aware of it, as the word was unused in any contemporary Hebrew literature.
Mormon Stories “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” Essay
My honest reaction to this paragraph is:
Not only that, but it’s been known to be wrong for decades. More than half a century on
The Origins of Curved,
Curved, bladed weapons—which scholars freely call scimitars—have been known since the Bronze Age. Some scholars believe such weapons were known in the ancient Near East as early as the 3rd millennium BC.1 It’s certainly attested by the 2nd millennium BC. Describing weapons from the Later Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BC), archaeologist Amihai Mazar wrote, “Sickle-shaped scimitars are known both from actual finds and from Egyptian artistic depictions.”2 Mazer shows an illustration of the Egyptian weapon, which he captions as “a scimitar.”
In Canaan, “the curved sickle-sword, or scimitar” is known even earlier, in the Middle Bronze Age.3 An Egyptian text written in the early 2nd millennium BC mentions the plundering of weapons, including scimitars, from Canaanite towns: “copper-cum-wood [weapons]: (battle)-axes, 10; scimitars, 33; daggers, 12; knives (?), 11.”4
There’s even evidence that Israelites specifically used curved-bladed swords. Boyd Seevers, an expert in Old Testament warfare, said, “Likely the typical early Israelite sword was a sickle-sword, which had a handle attached to a straight shaft that continued into a curved blade.”5 The only known artistic depiction of Israelite swords, from Assyrian reliefs dated to ca. 700 BC, illustrates them as curved-bladed weapons.6
For what it is worth, curved weapons that leading Maya scholars Mary Miller and Simon Martin have described as “scimitar-like” are also known in Mesoamerican art going back to the early pre-Classic period (ca. 1500–900 BC).7
So the existence of curved-bladed weapons, which scholars have freely referred to as scimitars, is well attested long before the Ottoman empire or the 9th century AD.
UPDATE: The Origins of Ottoman Empire
My fellow time traveler Ann Eliza Young has pointed out another inaccuracy in this section, which I failed note originally, as it is somewhat tangential to my post. But as she noted, the Ottoman Empire was founded in the 13th century–some 400 years later than that claimed in Dehlin’s essay. Given that this is in a section on anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, the anachronistic reference to the Ottoman Empire is comical, to say the least.
Asian Word for Blade
First, what’s an “Asian” word? This generalization is
unhelpful, and also pretty racist. Asia is a huge continent, with literally
hundreds of different languages and cultures—which includes the Middle-East,
where Israel is. So technically a “Hebrew” word is an “Asian” word.
I assume that what they mean is it’s a Persian word, but even that is not really accurate. Scimitar is an English word—and there’s no problem with it showing up in an English translation. As quoted above, Egyptologist Donald Redford used “scimitar” in his English translation of an Egyptian word referring to curved-bladed weapons from around 2000 BC.8 So again, not clear what the problem is.
As for the origins of the word, its etymology goes back to 15th century French (cimeterre) and Italian (scimitarra). It’s origins beyond that are uncertain. Some think it comes from the Persian shimshir, but others think that connection is unsatisfactory.9
There’s a whole section on steel elsewhere in the essay, which
I or one of my compatriots might decide to deal with in detail later. For now,
I’ll just say three things:
1. Steel is definitely not anachronistic for Lehi’s time. Tests performed on iron objects from the early Iron Age proved that nearly all of them were technically made of steel.10 What’s more, a steel Israelite sword has specifically been found dated to the 7th century BC.11
3. Scimitars needn’t necessarily be made out of steel. As noted, sickle-shaped swords referred to as scimitars by scholars are known from the Bronze Age, and were made out of bronze, and sometimes even wood. In Mesoamerica, scimitar-like blades were made out of flint.12
The Word Unused in
Contemporary Hebrew Literature
Obviously, the Englishword scimitar is not used in any Hebrew literature from Lehi’s day. But as noted, words translated as “scimitar” by scholars are known in the ancient Near East, going back to well before Lehi’s day. Obviously, since Israelites had curved swords (as noted above), they probably had a word for such swords as well. And indeed, there is just such a Hebrew word: kidon (כידון), defined as “javelin or short curved sword.”13 Roland De Vaux explains:
[Kîdôn] is usually translated ‘javelin’, … [m]ore probably, however, the kîdôn was a scimitar … like those shown on monuments discovered in excavations.14
In 1 Samuel 17:6 and 45, P. Kyle McCarter translates kidon as “scimitar,” and defines it as “a heavy, curved, flate-bladed, Oriental sword with a cutting edge on the outer (convex) side of the blade.”15
Significantly, the term kidon
shows up twice in Jeremiah (6:23; 50:42), a contemporary prophet with Lehi—so it
is used in “contemporary Hebrew literature.”
I honestly can’t imagine someone writing a single paragraph with more factual errors than this one. And while I’ve made it a point to cite mainstream academic sources here, it’s not like Mormon scholars have not pointed this out—in response to this very criticism—before.16 So why does critical literature, including here Dehlin’s essays, keep repeating this nonsensical claim over and over and over?
Perhaps it’s because they did nothing more than read the
Wikipedia article on “scimitar”—a shallow and superficial research method if
ever there was one. Or perhaps it’s because they know for many who lose faith
over articles like this, it’s the cumulative effect of the arguments. Piling on
one claim after another—no matter how tenuous—can overwhelm the unsuspecting
reader who does not know any better, and doesn’t have the means to factcheck
the information presented.
If this is the case, it’s easy to see why critics might
continue to repeat old claims long since debunked, since reducing the number of
arguments does not ultimately serve the cumulative effect very well. But it’s
also extremely unethical. So let’s give Dehlin the benefit of the doubt and
just assume that he really just didn’t know any better—his understanding of the
topic too superficial. This still seriously undermines the credibility of the essays.
Well, it didn’t take long before Dehlin had to start taking blatantly false claims out of at least one of his “truth claims” essays. Compare this screenshot taken when the “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” essay first went up:
To this one, taken at the time of my writing this post:
Notice that the section on “fiery flying serpents,” which
originally appeared before “dogs,” has been removed. I don’t know exactly why or
when this happened, but this was smart decision on the part of someone over at
Mormon Stories, since Nephi’s mention of fiery flying serpents is demonstrably not a problem for the Book of Mormon, and
least of all an archaeological problem.
In fact, it’s supported by archaeological evidence.
For starters, look at the scripture references there—one is
to the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:41), but the other two are from Isaiah, and
they read (in the KJV):
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
The burden of the beasts of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent, they will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses, and their treasures upon the bunches of camels, to a people that shall not profit them.
Don’t you think that, right there, should have tipped off Dehlin or the author of the essays that this really isn’t a problem for the Book of Mormon? That it’s perfectly normal for an ancient Israelite to believe in fiery flying serpents?
If the author were familiar with the archaeology of Israel, they might have known that winged/flying snakes, like the one on this seal from the 7th century BC (i.e., around Nephi’s time), are well known in ancient Israel’s iconography:
This image was originally published in the Biblical Archaeology Review, with the caption:
The pink limestone seal or amulet with a winged snake recalls the saraf, or fiery serpent, of Isaiah 30:6.1
Saraf (sometimes spelled saraph) is also the same Hebrew word which appears in Numbers 21:6, 8, in the same story Nephi is talking about in 1 Nephi 17:41. It also shows up, untranslated, in Isaiah 6 as the plural seraphim, where they are portrayed as fiery, flying creatures with six-wings. Biblical scholar Marvin A. Sweeny defines seraphim as “fiery ones” and explains:
[Seraphim are] fiery beings of supernatural origin. … Seraphim have six wings. … A flying seraph (Heb. saraph; NRSV: “serpent”) appears in Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 together with “adders” and “vipers.” The same Hebrew word (saraph) is used to describe the “fiery serpents” (NRSV: “poisonous serpents”) that afflicted Israel in the wilderness (Num. 21:6–9; Deut. 8:15). Thus, seraphim may have had a serpentine form and served, not only as guardians of the divine throne, but also as emissaries of divine judgement.2
In contrast to the rather flippant response to these as the subject of mere “fairy tale” in Dehlin’s essay (as it originally appeared), these references to flying serpents are taken quite seriously by scholars of the ancient Near East. To the point that they’ve tried to identify which species of snake is likely being referred to by these ancient authors.3
Even if merely “fairy tale,” however, the biblical and
archaeological evidence certainly demonstrates that it’s the kind of thing an
ancient Israelite would believe in. And it’s certainly interesting that although
the KJV only has “fiery serpents” in Numbers 21, the iconography clearly shows
that saraphs were depicted with
wings, and so Nephi’s “fiery flying serpents” is very likely how an ancient
Israelite would have understood the reference to saraphs in Numbers 21.
Now, as I already mentioned, Mormon Stories has already
removed the section on “Fiery Flying Serpents,” for reasons I am not really
aware of. But the very fact that the author thought this was a problem for the
Book of Mormon in the first place tells us they don’t know much about ancient Israel
and its material culture (as documented through archaeology).
But shouldn’t that kind of be a prerequisite to writing
about archaeology and the Book of Mormon?
There’s much more that Dehlin should consider having removed from this essay. Take, for example, the claim that “there is absolutely no mention of dogs” in the Book of Mormon, which can be seen in both screenshots above and thus is still in the essay (as of this writing).
This is demonstrably false:
Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.
I’d recommend that Dehlin have the section on dogs deleted as well. In fact, if Dehlin really wishes for these essays to be “accurate and robust,” as he claims, I would recommend he take the whole thing down and have it more carefully vetted, because it’s abundantly clear that the author’s understanding of both the relevant archaeology and the Book of Mormon text itself is deficient.
On his Mormon Stories website, John Dehlin has recently
begun releasing essays on the “truth claims” of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, claiming that they “explore Mormon truth claims as accurately,
succinctly, and objectively as possible.” The motive for them is because Dehlin
and his acolytes think that the Church’s Gospel Topics essays are “excessively
apologetic” and so the Mormon Stories essays are meant to represent “the essays
that should have been released by the LDS Church.”
The truth is that accurate, succinct, and objective are not the adjectives I would use to describe any of these essays. Whatever one may say about the objectivity and historical rigor of the Church’s essays, there is little question that the essays Dehlin is publishing are hopelessly and demonstrably worse.1
While there is a lot that could be done to demonstrate this, for now let’s just stick with something that I hope we can all agree is egregiously irresponsible: one of the essays cites a known forgery as if it were an authentic historical source.
Here’s a screenshot from the “Printing the Book of Mormon” essay:
The source cited as Defense, Oliver Cowdery p. 229 is more properly
known as Defence in a Rehearsal of My
Grounds for Separing Myself from the Latter Day Saints, supposedly
published in Ohio in 1839. Now here’s the rub—there isn’t a shred of evidence
that this pamphlet ever existed before 1906, when it was first published by R.
B. Neal, the leader of the American Anti-Mormon Association at the time.
Investigators have searched in vain for an original 1839 tract, or any kind of
reference to it—none can be found. Nor can the press it was supposedly printed
on (Pressley Job Office) be located.
As if all that were not suspicious enough, in comparing the writing against other things written by Oliver Cowdery, researchers discovered that it draws phrases from Oliver’s eight letters in the Messenger and Advocate from 1834–1835, and none of his other writings, but then reworks and re-contextualizes them. The pamphlet also betrays influences from David Whitmer’s 1887 An Address to All Believers—which is obviously impossible for something truly written in 1839.
And lest you think that it’s just “Mopologists” who dismiss this, everything said above is based on the research of the Jerald and Sandra Tanner —notorious anti-Mormons of the late-20th century. Sandra’s even been on Dehlin’s podcast. In 1967, the Tanners published a study of the document, concluding: “The whole thing, we think, looks like the work of an impostor.”2 They go on to say:
After carefully examining the evidence, we have come to the conclusion that the “Defence” is probably a spurious work, written sometime after 1887—i.e., after David Whitmer’s pamphlet appeared.3
More recently, Ronald V.
Huggins, another well-known anti-Mormon, concluded in 2008:
This makes it all but certain that the Defence was plagiarized from the Messenger and Advocate. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones.4
He goes on to state that while there were some hold outs in the 1960s, such as Junita Brooks and Fawn Brodie, “With time, however, Jerald’s position has won out, leaving Brodie to be one of the very few historians to hold out for the authenticity of the Defence.” 5
To my knowledge, there is no recent analysis favoring the documents authenticity or rebutting the work of the Tanners, Huggins, or Anderson.9
Adding to the irony of all of this is that the Mormon Stories essays are said to “honor, stand beside, and build upon the incredible resources already created” by the likes of UT Lighthouse Ministry—the anti-Mormon organization founded by the Tanners, which published both the Tanners’ original 1967 assessment and Huggins’ 2008 piece. In Huggins’ view, exposing this forgery is one of Jerald Tanners’ lasting contributions to the study of Mormon history. As such, I think it’s safe to that by quoting from this forgery, Dehlin is actually dishonoring the Tanners’ legacy.
Furthermore, although this forgery may only be used to support a minor point, the bottom line is this gives us very little reason to have confidence in the integrity of the essays and their level of historical rigor.