III.

Originality in Book of Mormon Names.

There is another gratifying distinction between Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite record and Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record that is also of first rate importance as an evidence of consistency in the work. That is the quite marked distinction between Nephite and Jaredite proper names as given in these respective parts of the record. Take for instance the list of names of Jaredite leaders and kings and compare it with a list of prominent Nephite leaders.

JAREDITE NAMES.

Jared
Pagag
Jacom
Gilgah
Mahah
Oriah
Esrom
Corihor
Shim
Cohor
Corom
Noah
Nimrah
Nimrod
Kib
Shule
Omer
Coriantumr
Emer
Com
Heth
Shez
Lib
Hearthom
Aaron
Amnigaddah
Shiblom
Seth
Ahah
Ethem
Moron
Coriantor
Shared
Gilead
Shiz
Ether
Riplakish
Morianton
Kim
Levi
Corum
Kish

NEPHITE NAMES.

Nephi
Lehi
Laman
Zoram
Chemish
Abinadom
Amaleki
Mosiah
Benjamin
Ammon
Alma
Amlici
Nephihah
Gideon
Amulek
Giddonali
Giddianhi
Aminadi
Zeniff
Zeezrom
Lamoni
Aaron
Helaman
Limhi
Heloram
Mormon
Moroni
Aminadab
Moronihah
Ammoron
Pacumeni
Gadianton
Kishkumen
Shiblon
Pahoran
Paanchi
Pachus
Cezoram
Limher
Limhah
Mathoni
Mathonihah
Lehonti
Gidgiddonah
Muloki
Abinadi
Corihor
Gidgiddon
Amalickiah
Zemnarihah
Hagoth
Helam
Hearthom
Sherrizah

An inspection of these two lists of names discloses the fact that the Jaredite names, with the single exception of "Shule" and "Levi," end in consonants, while very many of the Nephite names end in a vowel; and while many of the Nephite names also end in consonants, yet the preponderance of Nephite names that end in vowels over Jaredite names is considerable. I am not able to say what value attaches to this distinction, I can only point it out as a marked distinction, and it may be an important one.

Another distinction may be discerned in the fact that there are more simple, and evidently root-words among the Jaredite names than among the Nephite names; that is, there are not so many derivatives in the former as in the latter, though in the former there are a few. "Corihor," may have come from "Cohor;" "Coriantumr," from "Coriantor," though it may be merely a variation of the more ancient name "Moriancumer." "Nimarah" may have come from "Nimrod;" and "Akish" from "Kish." But this about exhausts the derivatives among the Jaredite names. As illustrations merely of the Nephite derivatives, and not with a view of exhausting the list, I give the following: "Nephihah," evidently comes from "Nephi," "Amalickiah," from "Amaleki," "Gidgiddoni," "Gidgiddonah," "Giddonah," and "Gideon," from "Gid," "Helaman" from "Helam;" "Ammoron," from "Ammon;" "Moronihah," from "Moroni;" "Mathonihah," from "Mathoni." This is enough for illustration, and inspection will show the percentage of derivatives in the Nephite names of the Book of Mormon to be not only greatly but very greatly in excess of derivatives in the Jaredite names. And this is what consistency demands of the Book of Mormon. The more ancient people the simpler and fewer compound names—more root names, fewer derivatives. William A. Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, writing for the Hackett edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says:

Glancing a moment at the history of names and name-giving among the Hebrews, we readily distinguish many of those changes which characterize popular customs and habits in this particular among all peoples. In their first or ruder age their names are simple and "smell of nature." In the period of their highest national and religious development we find more compound and more allusions to artificial refinements.[[8]]

That law is found operating at least between the more ancient people of the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, and the more modern people, the Nephites. While the list of names obtainable from the abridgment of the very small fragment of a Jaredite record of the Book of Mormon does not give sufficient data to warrant a positive conclusion, yet I think there is discernable a tendency even in that list from the more simple to derivative names;[[9]] while as between the earlier and later Nephite times the translation from the simple to an increase of compound names is quite marked.[[10]] I do not mean by this that the simpler names are not found throughout the whole Nephite period, but that the percentage of derivative names greatly increase in the latter times.

Referring again to the marked distinction between Jaredite and Nephite names, I desire to call attention to the fact that the demands for this distinction are imperative, since these peoples though they occupied the same continent did so successively and at periods of time widely separated. The Jaredites occupied the north continent from soon after the dispersion of mankind from Babel until the opening of the 6th century B. C. About the time the Jaredites were destroyed the Nephite colony arrived in South America, and Mulek's colony in North America. But the only person connecting the two peoples was Coriantumr (the last of the Jaredites) through some nine months of association with the colony of Mulek. Whether or not his race was perpetuated by marriage into Mulek's colony is merely a matter of conjecture.[[11]] So far as the Nephite connection with the Jaredites is concerned it exists only through the Jaredite records discovered by the people of Zeniff (B. C. 123), and translated soon afterwards by Mosiah II. This translation of the Jaredite record making known, in outline merely, the history of the Jaredites to the Nephites, might give to the Nephites some Jaredite names, as in the case of the noted warrior among the Nephites bearing the name Coriantumr.[[12]] Still from the fact that the connection between the Nephites and the Jaredites is so slight; and the occupancy of the North Continent by the respective peoples separated by so long a period of time, it could not be otherwise than that there would be a marked distinction in proper names between the two peoples, a distinction that will be quite apparent to the reader when he compares the respective lists of Jaredite and Nephite names here presented at radom; and which, had it been wanting, would have been a serious objection to the consistency, and consequently to the claims, of the Book of Mormon.

When the general unity of style found in the Book of Mormon is taken into account, this distinction in proper names becomes all the more remarkable. But it is a case where the circumstances emphatically demand a distinction; just as the circumstances emphatically demand a marked distinction at the transition from the unabridged writings of the Nephite authors—written in the first person, and in so simple and direct a style—to the abridged record of Mormon—written in the third person and in so complex, not to say confusing, a style. Had the Prophet Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon failed to have shown the distinctions at these points where such distinctions are so imperatively demanded—in a word, had the style and language of the book failed to be consistent with the theory of its construction—how serious an objection the failure would have been considered! But since the consistency of the style and language of the book with the theory of the work's construction is established, how strong the evidence is which that fact constitutes! And more especially when it is remembered that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates had sufficient knowledge of literature, to cause them to appreciate the importance of such a consistency. The evidence that they were unconscious of the point here made is to be found in the fact that they never alluded to it in their life time, nor was the foregoing argument ever made by any one else within their life time.

IV.

Of the Nephite Custom in Naming Cities and Provinces Being Ancient.

It should be remarked that both Jaredites and Nephites named cities, plains, valleys, mountains and provinces after the names of prominent men, especially the men who were identified in some way with the settlement or history of said places; so that it often happens that names of places take on the names of men or some variation of their names; and hence the frequent identity and more frequently the likeness between the names of places and the names of men. Both people also followed the custom of ancient nations, not only in naming cities after the men who founded them or who were prominently connected with their history, but also in giving the district of country surrounding a city the same name as the city. Thus among the Jaredites there is Nehor the city, and "the land [or province] of Nehor," meaning the district of country surrounding the city of Nehor.[[13]] I believe also that there was a Jaredite city of Moron, as well as a land of Moron, although there is no specific reference to a city of that name, but frequent references to the "land of Moron,"[[14]] which I take to mean the district of country surrounding the city of Moron.[[15]] That this custom obtained among the Nephites is so commonly understood that illustration is scarcely necessary, yet by way of illustration I instance the following: The city of Bountiful,[[16]] and the land of Bountiful;[[17]] the city of Zarahemla,[[18]] and the land of Zarahemla; [[19]] the city of Moroni;[[20]] and the land of Moroni;[[21]] the city of Nephihah,[[22]] and the land of Nephihah;[[23]] the city of Manti, and the land of Manti.[[24]]

That the customs here referred to are in harmony with the customs of ancient nations I cite the following as illustrations of my statement: Nineveh takes its name from Ninus, the son of Nimrod. Nimrod founded the city and gave to it a variation of his son's name.[[25]] M. Rollin also identifies Nimrod with Belus, the first king whom the "people deified for his great actions," and after whom, some authorities affirm, the noted temple of Belus within the city of Babylon was named; and from which the city itself, as some affirm, took its name.[[26]] Of course we have the statement of holy writ that Babylon received its name from the circumstances of the Lord confounding the language of the builders of the city,[[27]] "Babel" in the Hebrew meaning confusion. Professor Hackett, however, in his contribution on the subject to Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, while nothing the statement in Genesis, says: "But the native (i. e. Chaldean) etymology is Ba-il 'the gate of the god 'Il;' or perhaps more simple, 'the gate of god;' and this no doubt was the original intention of the appellation as given by Nimrod, though the other sense (i. e. the Bible sense) came to be attached to it after the confusion of tongues." Hence one may say that "Babylon" has taken its name from both circumstances. That is, from the "Nimrod" of the Chaldeans it takes its name from its founder, "Belus," who is Nimrod, while to the Hebrew mind it owes its name to the circumstance of the confusion of languages.

Professor Campbell, according to Osborn, thinks that the name "Jebez," of Chronicles ii: 55, is "Thebes;" which originally was "Tei Jabez," the city named from "Jabez," and which is written without the "T" in the hieroglyphics, that letter being only the article.[[28]]

Plato in his Timaeus, where he introduces the story of Atlantis, says: "At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung."[[29]] This is an incident where the district of country takes its name from the city. Other instances in support of the ancient custom here referred to will be found in the case of "Rome," so called after "Romulus;" "Alexandria; after Alexander;" "Constantinople," after "Constantine." The names of countries and sections of country," says Professor W. A. Wright, "are almost universally derived from the name of their first settlers or earliest historic populations."[[30]]

V.

Of the Nephites, Like the Jews Being a Mononymous People.

Still another singular and fortunate circumstance for the claims of the Book of Mormon with reference to names should be noted. "Unlike the Romans," says Professor Wright, already quoted, "but like the Greeks, the Hebrews were a mononymous people. That is, each person received but a single name.[[31]] The Nephites, it must be remembered, were Hebrews, and therefore would very likely follow the custom of their race with reference to this practice of giving but one name to a person. This they did; for throughout the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon, there is not a single instance where a person receives more than one name. In other words, the Nephites, like the whole Hebrew race, were a mononymous people. So, too, the Jaredites, a more ancient branch of the same race, are a mononymous people.

Now, as neither Joseph Smith nor his associates would likely be acquainted with this singular custom of the Hebrew race, I take the fact of agreement of Nephite practice with this Hebrew custom, as an incidental evidence of some weight in favor of the claims of the Book of Mormon. To appreciate the value of it, I will ask the reader to think what importance would be given to an objection based upon the violation of this custom by a branch of the Hebrew race. That is, suppose the Book of Mormon had been full of double names, applied to the same person, what then? Could it not be claimed with some force that here would be the violation of a very universal custom of the Hebrew people? I think such a claim, if the facts warranted it, would be both forceful and consistent. Instead of the violation of the Hebrew custom, however, there is a singular accordance with it; and the fact of agreement, I suggest, is entitled to as much weight in favor of the book as the supposed disagreement would have been against it.

This circumstance also sustains the claims of the Book of Mormon to being an ancient record; for if it was of modern origin, having for its authors Joseph Smith and his associates, it would not very likely have followed so absolutely this ancient Hebrew custom, since Joseph Smith and his associates lived in a time and among a people where it was common at least, if not actually customary, to give to persons double names, a custom that would likely have influenced them in any creation of names which they would have attempted.

But very few Jaredite and Nephite proper names with their interpretation, and but few original common names, with their interpretation have found their way into the translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. Of the first class—proper names with interpretations—I instance the Jaredite word "Ripliancum,"[[32]] which by interpretation means "large," or "to exceed all." It is employed in connection with describing the arrival of the army of Coriantumr in the region of the great lakes, between the present countries of Canada and the United States. It is most probably a proper name carrying with it the signification equivalent to the phrase we use in describing the same waters, viz: "the Great Lakes," or, as the implied Book of Mormon interpretation stands, bodies of water that exceed in size all others of their kind.

Then there is the Jaredite common name "deseret," meaning honey bee. [[33]] In passing I call attention to the fact that the Hebrew proper name, "Deborah" also means "bee," that is, honey bee;[[34]] and it is quite likely that the proper name "Deborah" is derived from the same root whence comes "Deseret." The only other common names from the Jaredites are the words "cureloms" and "cumoms."[[35]] These are the names of domestic animals said to have been especially useful to the Jaredites, hence most likely used either for draft or pack animals, or perhaps both.

Turning to the Nephite record we have the name of "Irreantum,"[[36]] meaning the sea, or "many waters." Also the word "Liahona,"[[37]] meaning "compass," or perhaps more properly, "director," since, unlike the modern compass, it indicated a variant direction rather than a permanent one; and was made useful to the person possessing it through the principle of faith rather than the magnetic polar force; hence it could only be explained by the term "compass" in that it was an "indicator," or "director." The word "Gazelem" is also a Nephite word, meaning "a stone," that is, a seer stone, since it is spoken of as a means of ascertaining knowledge through it by revelation.[[38]] In addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins, as follows:

The names of the gold coins, commencing with the one of lowest value, are: a senine, a seon, a shum and a limnah.

A seon was twice the value of a senine; a shum was twice the value of a seon; and a limnah was equal to the value of all the other gold coins.

The silver coins were, a senum, an amnor, an ezrom and an onti.

Their relative value is stated as follows: an amnor of silver was twice the value of a senum; an ezrom four times the value of a senum; an onti was equal in value to all the other silver coins.

The fractional values are represented as follows: A shiblom is half a senum; a shiblum is one half a shiblom; a leah is one half of a shiblum.

We have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms, nor am I interested in that matter here. I only desire to call attention to the fact that these are Nephite names brought over into our language by the translation of the Nephite records, though reference to the passage[[39]] where the tables are given will plainly indicate to the interested enquirer that there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine.

Alluding to this matter of names in a general way I suggest that there is nothing more difficult in literature than to originate new names. As a matter of fact names do not suggest things, but things suggest names. Men do not bring into existence names and then fasten them upon things, but they see an object, they hear a sound, or become acquainted with an idea, and the object, the sound or the idea suggests a name. So that names, speaking generally, arise from things already existing and are not formed arbitrarily. The names in the Book of Mormon could come into existence in one of two ways only. Either Joseph Smith arbitrarily created them, or else he found them in the Nephite record. Since originating new names is so extremely difficult, the probability in the case lies on the side of Joseph Smith finding them in the Nephite record. If any one should doubt of the difficulty of originating new names I would invite him to make the experiment. In this connection I remember with what ease an old teacher of mine in English put down a somewhat presumptuous class mate. The teacher had expatiated on the excellence of the Proverbs of Solomon, when the aforesaid class mate expressed his contempt of things so simple. "Proverbs," exclaimed he, to those sitting near him, "why, it's easy enough to write proverbs." The good Doctor who was our teacher happened to overhear the remark and said to the speaker, "Suppose you write us a few." My class mate tried: and the more he tried the farther from proverbs he got. He had not learned that proverbs were the "pure literature of reason:" the statement of "absolute truths without qualification;" "the sanctuary of the intuitions of humanity." And so with this matter of originating names. It may seem a simple thing, but those who entertain such an idea let them give us a few new names. Now, the Book of Mormon has a number of proper names that are not new. These are chiefly Bible names and are found in Nephite writings because the Nephites brought with them to the western hemisphere copies of so many of the sacred books of the Jews as were in existence at the time of their departure from Judea, 600 B. C., parts of which were multiplied by copying and helped form part of the Nephite literature; hence they sometimes used Bible names. But the Book of Mormon also gives us a long list of absolutely new names, both of men and of places, though in many in stances, as already pointed out, the names of cities and the districts or country surrounding them took the name of some noted person in some way or other prominently connected with the history of the place. I have already pointed out that a marked distinction exists between Nephite names and Jaredite names, so that we may see that the Book of Mormon gives us two lists of new names, one Jaredite, the other Nephite, which fact, when coupled with the well recognized difficulty of originating names, renders the performance all the more remarkable. It not only demonstrates the originality of the Book of Mormon, but must be admitted to be either a striking demonstration of wonderful genius on the part of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or else a very strong evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon. And since the list of new names is quite too large to refer to the genius of one single writer for their origin, I think the latter conclusion represents the truth in the case.