Are there non-Mormon archaeologists who find evidence through archaeological remains for the descriptions in the Book of Mormon of pre-Columbian America?
One Response to “Are there non-Mormon archaeologists who find evidence throug…”
Lucas Silva
2007-12-10 01:19:11
Hi friend. It's good to hear from you again.
Before answering your question, please let me make a few points. First, it is a mistake to dismiss LDS (Mormon) scholars so readily. Several Evangelical scholars describe this mistake in an article entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect." There are many Mormon scholars with PhDs in biblical studies, ancient history, archeology, and ancient literature. These Mormon academians regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals. There is something of a double standard here. Does anyone question Jewish scholars when they publish studies regarding Judaism? Of course not! It makes sense that Jews would be among the leading academians that study Jewish topics because they have a personal interest in them. Unfortunately, some question Mormon scholars writing about Mormon topics, dismissing otherwise qualified academians as "biased" because of their personal faith. If you're interested in learning more about some of the scholarship Mormon academians have produced, please read my recent blog entry entitled "Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"
Secondly, it is important to note that even if the Book of Mormon was a historically accurate text (and I believe it is), it would be difficult to prove its authenticity using archeology.
Archeological research in Mesoamerica, where most Mormon scholars believe the story of the Book of Mormon took place, is a much more difficult undertaking than in Biblical lands. While place names have remained largely unchanged in Israel, academians do not know the original place names of many Mesoamerican sites. Instead, they often use Spanish names like "El Mirador." Archeologists may have already found some of the cities of the Book of Mormon, but they have no knowledge of their 15th-century names, let alone the names they bore 2,000 years ago during Book of Mormon times.
Thus far only a small percentage of all Mesoamerican archeological sites have been excavated. Mesoamerican archeology is still in its infancy. Who knows what will be discovered in the future? The study of Biblical archeology, on the other hand, is centuries old.
Many archeological sites in Central America have been destroyed by modern urbanization. Unfortunately, often times Central-American countries are not as concerned with archeological preservation as are their North-American counterparts. Much archeological evidence about Mesoamerica has thus been lost; we may never have the complete story of ancient Mesoamerican history.
Many Mesoamerican records were destroyed by the conquering Spaniards, thus potentially erasing valid records of Book-of-Mormon peoples (assuming those records survived the 1,000 years between the end of the Book of Mormon and the Spanish conquest, which also seems unlikely). Michael Coe, a non-Mormon scholar, has said, "...our knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)." This widespread destruction of historical evidence has been devastating to Mesoamerican studies.
The Mayan peoples customarily built their structures over existing structures, using the debris of preceding ruins in the construction of their new cities. Because of this unfortunate practice, even if Book-of-Mormon cities did exist 2,000 years ago, their ruins may have been recycled by subsequent civilizations.
It is not known to what extent the Book-of-Mormon peoples took on the cultural practices of their surrounding neighbors. There is substantial evidence within the Book of Mormon itself that at least some of the people (the "Lamanites") did take on native cultural practices. These people might be archeologically indistinguishable from neighboring native populations.
The Book of Mormon itself is primarily a religious text. It does not provide many geographic clues that would allow one to verify its truthfulness through archeology. The book itself states that it contains less than "a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people" (Helaman 3:14).
Because of these challenges, I'd like to modify your question a bit. Rather than asking what non-Mormon scholars have said about Book-of-Mormon archeology, let me mention a few things that non-Mormon scholars have said about academic evidence of the authenticity of Mormon scriptures in general (i.e. scriptures that Mormons use in addition to the Holy Bible). (It is important to note that because of the Book of Mormon's spiritual claims, most non-Mormon scholars do not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those of these same scholars that are not Christians would reject much of the Bible by the same reasoning.)
In a fascinating article entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect," evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen stated that Mormon scholarship is formidable, including scholarship that has produced evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Said they, "Evangelicals: We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder."
Mormon scholars have pointed out many parallels between Mormon scriptures and ancient texts, squarely placing the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price (another, smaller book of Mormon scripture) in an ancient context. James H. Charlesworth, a non-Mormon scholar and arguably the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings, points to what he describes as "important parallels that deserve careful examination."
George Nickelsburg, another non-Mormon scholar, has noted an interesting parallel between the Qumranic "Book of the Giants" and the "Book of Moses" in the Pearl of Great Price, again suggesting an ancient origin for that book.
Dr. Harold Bloom of Yale cannot explain the many parallels between Mormon scriptures, supposedly written in the 19th century, and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself through what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."
The Book of Mormon claims that a small group of people came from Israel to the Americas. The Book of Mormon suggests that this relatively small group of people eventually mixed with the peoples that had migrated to the Americas over the Bering straight. Remarkably, there is substantial evidence of a Hebraic influence on the Uto-Aztecan language of Central America. While Uto-Aztecan was not derived from Hebrew, it seems Hebrew did influence its linguistic development. There are over 1,000 similarities between ancient Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, including the use of the plural suffix "-im" in Hebrew and "-ima" Uto-Aztecan, the passive prefix "ni-" Hebrew and the prefix "na-" in Uto-Aztecan, the Hebrew word "yasab" and the Uto-Aztecan word "yasipa," which both mean "to sit or to dwell," the Hebrew word "adam" and the Uto-Aztecan word "otam," which both mean "man," the Hebrew word "katpa" and the Uto-Aztecan word "kotpa," which both mean shoulder, the Hebrew words "ya-'amin" and the Uto-Aztecan words "yawamin," which both mean "he believes," etc, etc, etc. Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, a non-Mormon Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, as well as others, have confirmed that these similarities cannot be ignored.
Mormon scholars have performed a statistical analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon and showed it to be written by multiple authors (as it claims), none of which were Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Solomon Spaulding (the commonly suspected "authors"). A second group of scholars, which included several non-Mormon academians, confirmed this result. (In the sake of full disclosure, this is a hotly debated finding. Despite its widespread acceptance, some scholars dispute the validity of the "wordprint" statistical method used in these kinds of studies.)
The Book of Mormon describes a man named Mulek (a shortened form of the name Malkiyahu), who was the son of an Israelite king Zedekiah. Many have criticized the Book of Mormon, because a certain (common) reading of the Bible suggests that Zedekiah had no sons. However, a recent ancient seal was discovered in Jerusalem bearing the title, "Malkiyahu the son of the king." A prominent non-Mormon ancient Near-Eastern specialist subsequently declared, "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!"
The Book of Mormon contains many elaborate poetic forms called "chiasmus." The importance of chiasmus in ancient Semitic writings was only recognized in the past century; Joseph Smith could not have known of them. Regarding this finding, a world-famous, non-Mormon scholar called it the "most stunning information I've learned concerning the Book of Mormon."
While all this evidence is interesting, it would be a mistake to believe in the Book of Mormon based on academic evidence alone. Academic evidence is subject to constant revision, but a testimony of the Book of Mormon given from God is not subject to change.
Before answering your question, please let me make a few points. First, it is a mistake to dismiss LDS (Mormon) scholars so readily. Several Evangelical scholars describe this mistake in an article entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect." There are many Mormon scholars with PhDs in biblical studies, ancient history, archeology, and ancient literature. These Mormon academians regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals. There is something of a double standard here. Does anyone question Jewish scholars when they publish studies regarding Judaism? Of course not! It makes sense that Jews would be among the leading academians that study Jewish topics because they have a personal interest in them. Unfortunately, some question Mormon scholars writing about Mormon topics, dismissing otherwise qualified academians as "biased" because of their personal faith. If you're interested in learning more about some of the scholarship Mormon academians have produced, please read my recent blog entry entitled "Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"
Secondly, it is important to note that even if the Book of Mormon was a historically accurate text (and I believe it is), it would be difficult to prove its authenticity using archeology.
- Archeological research in Mesoamerica, where most Mormon scholars believe the story of the Book of Mormon took place, is a much more difficult undertaking than in Biblical lands. While place names have remained largely unchanged in Israel, academians do not know the original place names of many Mesoamerican sites. Instead, they often use Spanish names like "El Mirador." Archeologists may have already found some of the cities of the Book of Mormon, but they have no knowledge of their 15th-century names, let alone the names they bore 2,000 years ago during Book of Mormon times.
- Thus far only a small percentage of all Mesoamerican archeological sites have been excavated. Mesoamerican archeology is still in its infancy. Who knows what will be discovered in the future? The study of Biblical archeology, on the other hand, is centuries old.
- Many archeological sites in Central America have been destroyed by modern urbanization. Unfortunately, often times Central-American countries are not as concerned with archeological preservation as are their North-American counterparts. Much archeological evidence about Mesoamerica has thus been lost; we may never have the complete story of ancient Mesoamerican history.
- Many Mesoamerican records were destroyed by the conquering Spaniards, thus potentially erasing valid records of Book-of-Mormon peoples (assuming those records survived the 1,000 years between the end of the Book of Mormon and the Spanish conquest, which also seems unlikely). Michael Coe, a non-Mormon scholar, has said, "...our knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)." This widespread destruction of historical evidence has been devastating to Mesoamerican studies.
- The Mayan peoples customarily built their structures over existing structures, using the debris of preceding ruins in the construction of their new cities. Because of this unfortunate practice, even if Book-of-Mormon cities did exist 2,000 years ago, their ruins may have been recycled by subsequent civilizations.
- It is not known to what extent the Book-of-Mormon peoples took on the cultural practices of their surrounding neighbors. There is substantial evidence within the Book of Mormon itself that at least some of the people (the "Lamanites") did take on native cultural practices. These people might be archeologically indistinguishable from neighboring native populations.
- The Book of Mormon itself is primarily a religious text. It does not provide many geographic clues that would allow one to verify its truthfulness through archeology. The book itself states that it contains less than "a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people" (Helaman 3:14).
Because of these challenges, I'd like to modify your question a bit. Rather than asking what non-Mormon scholars have said about Book-of-Mormon archeology, let me mention a few things that non-Mormon scholars have said about academic evidence of the authenticity of Mormon scriptures in general (i.e. scriptures that Mormons use in addition to the Holy Bible). (It is important to note that because of the Book of Mormon's spiritual claims, most non-Mormon scholars do not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those of these same scholars that are not Christians would reject much of the Bible by the same reasoning.)- In a fascinating article entitled "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect," evangelical scholars Carl Mosser and Paul Owen stated that Mormon scholarship is formidable, including scholarship that has produced evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Said they, "Evangelicals: We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder."
- Mormon scholars have pointed out many parallels between Mormon scriptures and ancient texts, squarely placing the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price (another, smaller book of Mormon scripture) in an ancient context. James H. Charlesworth, a non-Mormon scholar and arguably the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings, points to what he describes as "important parallels that deserve careful examination."
- George Nickelsburg, another non-Mormon scholar, has noted an interesting parallel between the Qumranic "Book of the Giants" and the "Book of Moses" in the Pearl of Great Price, again suggesting an ancient origin for that book.
- Dr. Harold Bloom of Yale cannot explain the many parallels between Mormon scriptures, supposedly written in the 19th century, and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself through what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."
- The Book of Mormon claims that a small group of people came from Israel to the Americas. The Book of Mormon suggests that this relatively small group of people eventually mixed with the peoples that had migrated to the Americas over the Bering straight. Remarkably, there is substantial evidence of a Hebraic influence on the Uto-Aztecan language of Central America. While Uto-Aztecan was not derived from Hebrew, it seems Hebrew did influence its linguistic development. There are over 1,000 similarities between ancient Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, including the use of the plural suffix "-im" in Hebrew and "-ima" Uto-Aztecan, the passive prefix "ni-" Hebrew and the prefix "na-" in Uto-Aztecan, the Hebrew word "yasab" and the Uto-Aztecan word "yasipa," which both mean "to sit or to dwell," the Hebrew word "adam" and the Uto-Aztecan word "otam," which both mean "man," the Hebrew word "katpa" and the Uto-Aztecan word "kotpa," which both mean shoulder, the Hebrew words "ya-'amin" and the Uto-Aztecan words "yawamin," which both mean "he believes," etc, etc, etc. Rhodes Scholar Dr. Roger Westcott, a non-Mormon Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, as well as others, have confirmed that these similarities cannot be ignored.
- Mormon scholars have performed a statistical analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon and showed it to be written by multiple authors (as it claims), none of which were Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Solomon Spaulding (the commonly suspected "authors"). A second group of scholars, which included several non-Mormon academians, confirmed this result. (In the sake of full disclosure, this is a hotly debated finding. Despite its widespread acceptance, some scholars dispute the validity of the "wordprint" statistical method used in these kinds of studies.)
- The Book of Mormon describes a man named Mulek (a shortened form of the name Malkiyahu), who was the son of an Israelite king Zedekiah. Many have criticized the Book of Mormon, because a certain (common) reading of the Bible suggests that Zedekiah had no sons. However, a recent ancient seal was discovered in Jerusalem bearing the title, "Malkiyahu the son of the king." A prominent non-Mormon ancient Near-Eastern specialist subsequently declared, "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!"
- The Book of Mormon contains many elaborate poetic forms called "chiasmus." The importance of chiasmus in ancient Semitic writings was only recognized in the past century; Joseph Smith could not have known of them. Regarding this finding, a world-famous, non-Mormon scholar called it the "most stunning information I've learned concerning the Book of Mormon."
While all this evidence is interesting, it would be a mistake to believe in the Book of Mormon based on academic evidence alone. Academic evidence is subject to constant revision, but a testimony of the Book of Mormon given from God is not subject to change.Hope this helps.