Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[Tarquin]

I am suggesting that Margaret Barker’s scholarship is a “POINT OF STRENGTH” not worthy of derision and mocking.
She might be wrong and the BOM from God still.
She might be right and the BOM not from God still.

Then this does not address the issue of whether arguments in support of the Book of Mormon or Mormonism actually are strong arguments, which is how the claim that the arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism’s “distinctives” lack strength. had begun. This addresses the strength of her scholarship, a separate issue in which,while pertinent, I was actually less interested.

But, independent of the dreaded MORMON BIAS she produced scholarship that fits well with the BOM. She recognizes the fit, the remarkableness of the fit, and is willing to say so. This is a “POINT OF STRENGTH.”

Speculations - ifs and maybes and could have beens - by one who admitted she is *not *a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions.

Perhaps she is not a scholar because of her views. Perhaps she is worthy of mocking and being called a LIAR because of her views.

If you say so. You’ll have to decide. But the reason we can say she is not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions is because she *herself *has written that she is “not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions.”

But mocking her, calling her dishonest, will not change the value some LDS find in her scholarship.

I know that. But what choice do Mormons have? It’s either her or a more well trained scholar, and someone who can be called a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions. If Mormons want to keep their faith, naturally they will gravitate to her.

It might be “red meat” for the base here at Catholic Answers, but I will dismiss it as desperation. Mock her and accuse her of dishonesty all you like!

But I don’t like. Your insinuation that I do is unjustified and insulting. I have read some of what she has written and find fault in it. I do not believe I mocked her, but I certainly do criticize her writing. And she may or may not be dishonest. If she is, that’s not my fault. But if I believe she may have not been completely forthright, I won’t let you silence me because you are upset to learn that an author might have embellished her work with exaggerations or fabrications. That happens in scholarship.

 

[Tarquin]

Another point about Nahom:

Lax16, it is also important to note that NIHM is believed to be a tribal name, not a place name, and that the three consonants can have a variety of spellings when vowels are inserted. Aston notes in the web site article that references to NHM are “usually given as NiHM, NeHeM, NaHaM etc.” The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies reports that this can also be spelled “NaHM” (7:1, 1998, p. 7).

My understanding is that there were four consonants. Unfortunately, I cannot find my source for that; so I will not be mentioning that again until/unless I rediscover a source. (The ‘y’ at the end of Nhmy and the ‘n’ in another appearance of the word are not the fourth consonant I had read about.)

Here, however, is what I can find that was written on the altar where “Nahom” (wink) was found:
B-> t t r / b n / ∞ w d m / b n / N w > m / N h m y
n / h q [n y / ]< l m q h / F r > t / b-

t t r / w-b- / < l m q h / w-b- / D t - H m y m / w-b-
Yd> -< l / w-b- / M > d k r b

A translation:
Bi>athar son of Sawdum, son of Naw>um, the Nihmite,
has dedi[cated] (to) **Ilmaqah **(the person) Fari>at. By

Athtar, and by Ilmaqah, and by Dhat-Himyam, and by
Yada>-il, and by Ma>adi-karib.
(See publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/10/2/S00008-50e5e94d04c218Aston.pdf for better representation)
You will see that the place-name “Nahom” does not appear on this altar. It looks to me like no place name appears here at all. There is an argument that “nhm” might mean mourning or hardship or some such. Even if that were so, it would not matter much, since Nephi did not give a meaning for the Book of Mormon place-name “Nahom”. For all we know, the word in the Book of Mormon might just as well have meant “hot spot” or “dug a hole here” or “in honor of the prophet Nahum” or the name of some rare species of butterfly. I see no way to make a legitimate connection between Book of Mormon “Nahom” and altar that a “Nihmite” dedicated to the god Ilmaqah.

Is it possible that the Lehites shared in the worship of IImaqah, but Nephi was ashamed to report it?

There is an interesting article about the tribe on academia dot edu: academia.edu/13256024/The_Origins_of_the_Nihm_Tribe_of_Yemen_A_Window_into_Arabias_Past
There are a number points that are important to a detailed discussion of Nhm for any who might want to become a scholar on the subject.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I was not trying to avoid you. As I was formulating my point, your words came to my mind. You offered something that helped me make my point. And I do not think I was making my point at your expense in anyway.
I also am not trying to scold anyone. I am trying to make a point.

Your position is that everyone has biases, but LDS such as me apply biased methodologies. This produces the disconnect where not only is my position not viewed as likely, it is viewed as similar to taking alien abduction stories seriously.

My position is that everyone has biases, but the pro-Mormon arguments I offer are not seriously considered and this creates the disconnect. It is not my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer should compel Catholic here to cease to be Catholic. It is my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer have “points of strength.” That they are not worthy of ridicule and they are not worthy of claims that I do not actually believe them but only say them to deceive others. (BTW, being worthy of ridicule and receiving ridicule are separate things, Catholic here judge Mormons as worthy and many are willing to dish it out).

Anyway, that is why I quoted you.
Charity, TOm

I just see many Mormons come here, seemingly to hone their skills and do things like create blogs, spring boarding off whatever can be globbed onto and made into something else.I don’t know if you do that but your posting style strikes me that you might.

You keep saying no one takes Mormon arguments seriously, well one, it would help if a serious argument were presented. I can’t make it past giant leaps of logic, such as, A is true, B is true, therefore C is true. That type of thing just really sends me to, “this person is talking nonsense”. The Nahom argument is the hyper example of this kind of “thinking”. I really don’t know how you can not see it.

Other than that, I don’t see that any Mormon, including yourself, is willing to take seriously the Catholic belief that God has never left us as orphans. You know the Holy Spirit guiding us to all truth? I have a really, extremely hard go to believe God really cares about us so little. If that were really so, I’d say, what’s the point? And go back to atheism.

 

[lax16]

Other than that, I don’t see that any Mormon, including yourself, is willing to take seriously the Catholic belief that God has never left us as orphans. You know the Holy Spirit guiding us to all truth? I have a really, extremely hard go to believe God really cares about us so little. If that were really so, I’d say, what’s the point? And go back to atheism.

This…and that the Mormon view of Christianity is not the fulfillment of Judaism. By claiming that God was once a man with flesh and bones redefines who we know God to be as passed on from our Jewish brothers and sisters for thousands of years.

I would stop here with these two blatant problems and wouldn’t even get to the point to even care about the Nahom argument.

 

[lax16]

My understanding is that there were four consonants. Unfortunately, I cannot find my source for that; so I will not be mentioning that again until/unless I rediscover a source. (The ‘y’ at the end of Nhmy and the ‘n’ in another appearance of the word are not the fourth consonant I had read about.)

Here, however, is what I can find that was written on the altar where “Nahom” (wink) was found:
B-> t t r / b n / ∞ w d m / b n / N w > m / N h m y
n / h q [n y / ]< l m q h / F r > t / b-

t t r / w-b- / < l m q h / w-b- / D t - H m y m / w-b-
Yd> -< l / w-b- / M > d k r b

I found my info at this link. I thought I included it in my earlier post:

mrm.org/nhm

You are correct in that there were four letters NIHM, 3 consonants and one vowel.

 

[Tarquin]

Nay home

• as in ‘no home’

I found my info at this link. I thought I included it in my earlier post:

mrm.org/nhm

You are correct in that there were four letters NIHM, 3 consonants and one vowel.

Thanks, Lax16. And as we all know, the old semitic/hamitic languages didn’t have letters used exclusively for vowels. A few consonants, notably ‘w’ and ‘y’ did double duty for ‘u’ and ‘i’. Arabic and Hebrew eventually created diacritics to represent vowels, as well as other features such as doubled consonants. So the “i” in “NIHM” *may *have represented a consonant rather than a vowel. A reduction of four characters to three characters is not justified by claiming “one of the letters is a vowel” without some background material to back that up.

Although typically portrayed as triliterals, Hebrew Semitic languages also have quadriliterals and even an occasional quinqueliteral word. I do not know enough about Early South Arabian to say how vowels were represented nor the frequency of quadriliterals . However, I do know enough about Early South Arabian, in this case epigraphic Early South Arabian in particular, to categorically state that the language is neither ancient Egyptian nor ancient Hebrew, and furthermore, it is neither re-formed Egyptian nor re-formed Hebrew. That creates a problem in my attempt to understand what Old World Early Southern Arabic “nihm/nhhm/nhm” is, especially in relation to a different language called re-formed Egyptian. Egyptian, too, was short on vowels, and its history in regard to vowels is murky. So the writing “Nahom” in the Book of Mormon may have been a transcription based on an English-accented version of an Egyptian word written to represent a Hebrew pronunciation; which makes me wonder, O God, my God, how can we possibly correlate anything! Is it “Nahom” vs. “NIHM”, or is it “Nahomoa” vs. “Nyhem”, or just what are these two vowelless words, one on an altar to the Moon God identifying the tribal membership (Nyhm?) of the dedicator or beneficiary, and the other presumably identify a place, it’s name given the English pronunciation “Nahom” (No-home?), perhaps a city or oasis or, well, okay, I’ll bite, a cemetery!

There’s a cemetery near us, but I’ve never heard anyone say, “Oh, yes, we were in town a few days, so thought we spend a few nights at the cemetery.” But ancient peoples may have liked the idea, I honestly do not know so I do not reject the possibility. What I think is that Joseph Smith had something like a small town or a village in mind, since he allows other cities and regions to gather populations of impressive, albeit unrealistic, proportions.

 

[Tarquin]

Something I had written two years ago when I first looked into Margaret Barker’s views:

"…Barker is far from traditional or typical. She seems (imo) to have a sort of gnostic or esoteric approach to the Bible, from the very brief (and therefore not conclusive) passages I have read. She does not share either a literal nor the traditionally symbolic interpretation of the Bible. For example, apparently, “Her hypothesis is that Elohim refers to the Most High God and that Jehovah (Yahweh) was one of his sons. There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel. After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon.”

From the introduction to her “King of the Jews”: “Those at Qumran who worshipped as/with the angels in heaven cannot have been very different from those who wrote and read John’s gospel and the Book of Revelation. The latter were the Hebrew-Christian community who saw themselves as the heavenly throng …Their Lamb on the throne opened a sealed book - secret teaching - and they were originally people chosen from all the twelve tribes of Israel to receive the Name of the Lord on their foreheads (Rev.7.3-4).”

Her books have been described as densely schol[astic] and difficult for the layman."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11866073&postcount=594

 

[lax16]

Tarquin - you are obviously very knowledgable about the subjects we have been discussing. I must rely on the scholarship of others and can only contribute to the conversation in a small way.

I look forward to a response by someone who is knowledgeable about the Mormon position.