The Letters from Lachish

[Solon]

A few months ago, the board hosted a discussion about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the historiography of 1 Nephi, and the role of innovation in historical tradition.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7999
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...77213#poststop

The Lachish letters are the closest written records to Lehi/Nephi's time/place that we have.

From 1935 to 1938, British excavators at Tel Lachish, a site in ancient Israel, discovered 18 broken potsherds (called ostraka) on which were preserved fragments of several letters written in ink. These letters, written near the time of the destruction of Lachish in ca. 587 BCE, represent the only surviving examples of Classical Hebrew prose. The letters were published in Lachish I by Harry Torczyner in 1938. See JSTOR for a review that appeared soon after publication. (Scroll to the bottom of the page.)

http://www.jstor.org/view/00224189/ap040088/04a00260/0

LDS apologists, particularly Hugh Nibley, have tried to tie these letters to the story of Lehi and other components of the Book of Mormon, since the letters date from the purported time of Lehi, Nephi, and family. Nibley published at least two articles relating the Book of Mormon to the Lachish letters, in addition to a more accessible article that appeared in the Ensign in December, 1981.

See Hugh W. Nibley, "Two Shots in the Dark," part i., "Dark Days in Jerusalem: The Lachish Letters and the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi)," in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS Reprint Series; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1996 [reprint of 1982 ed.]) 104.

Here's the Ensign article:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...____&hideNav=1

Nibley’s best point draws a connection between name forms in the letters and name forms in the Book of Mormon, and he makes less solid (in my opinion) points about writing surfaces and the role of Egyptian scribes in official Israelite correspondences.

In the Ensign article, Nibley relied heavily on Torczyner’s interpretation that the writer of the letters was in trouble for overstepping his bounds and reading his superiors’ mail. Indeed, Nibley went so far as to assert that the potsherds were kept in the guardhouse because they were going to be used as evidence in an upcoming court-martial. Subsequent scholarship has fairly persuasively argued that the sherds were most likely drafts of letters discarded by scribes after use [the simplest point being that 5 of the sherds came from the same pot, most likely indicating that the letters were written over a short span of time].

See Baruch Halpern’s review for a summary (you probably need JSTOR access; scroll to the bottom of the page):
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

In the 1990s, Dr. Thomas Finley presented a critique of Nibley’s use of the letters to demonstrate Book of Mormon connections.

You can read his arguments at: http://www.irr.org/mit/nibley.html

Okay, you ask – so what? It’s a nice debate.

These letters represent the closest match to anything written in the Hebrew language at the time of Lehi/Nephi in ancient Israel. Regardless of the debate over name endings, Egyptian scribes, deleth plates, or whatever, the form and content of these letters are very much at odds with anything found in the Book of Mormon (in my professional opinion).

I give you as example the third letter (also the longest). The translation comes from David Ussishkin, editor, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), vol. 4 (Tel Aviv: 2004), pp. 2100-2102.

1. Your servant Hosha’yahu has sent to
2. report to my lord (Ya)’ush. May YHWH let
3. my lord hear tidings of peace
4. and tidings of good! And now, open,
5. please the ear of your servant about the letter which
6. you sent to your servant yesterday evening. For the heart
7. of your servant has been sick since you sent (it) to your servant,
8. and my lord said: ‘You do not know
9. how to read a letter!’ As <Y>HWH lives, no one has ever tried
10. to read me a letter! Moreover,
11. whenever any letter comes to me, if
12. I read it, then I (can) repeat it
13. to the smallest detail. And to your servant it has been told:
14. ‘Down went the commander of the army
15. Konyahu son of Elnatan to go
16. into Egypt’. And
REVERSE
17. Hodawyahu son of Ahiyahu and
18. his men he sent to take from here.
19. And the letter of Tobyahu, servant of the king, addressed
20. to Shallum son of Yada’ from the prophet:
21. “Beware!”, your ser<v>ant sent it to my lord.

This letter is extremely cumbersome in style and struggles to provide more than rudimentary narrative description. The other letters, while fragmentary, nevertheless are highly formulaic with salutations and oaths. While I recognize that translation can add to or detract from style, I find it hard to accept these letters as contemporaneous with Book of Mormon writing. The closest thing to the tedious repetitions and primitive structure in these letters to be found in the Book of Mormon is "And it came to pass." Otherwise, Nephi's first-person account is filled with his personal thoughts, causality, and historical perspective - all anachronistic to 6th century historiography.

While I don't think the Lachish letters disprove the Book of Mormon, they certainly do not support it (IMO), Nibley's ideas notwithstanding.

If someone chooses to believe the BoM for personal religious reasons as a result of personal religious experience, I think that's great. I continue to be skeptical, however, of all arguments I've read that draw historical parallels.

I can't prove it, but it seems to me that the church has shied away from these types of historical connections over the past 10 years or so. The church pushes no agenda (as far as I know) with the NWAF's archaeological digs in Meso-America, nor does it include photo plates of Mayan temples in the front matter of the Book of Mormon any longer. Even FARMS seems to be more focused on Bible problems than BoM ones. Commendable.

[Archaea]

Good work Solon. Do you do Hebrew as well?

[creekster]

So if one thousand years from now, after all other records of our era had been destroyed, somebody stumbled across an internal memo from a utility middle manager to his superior apologizing to his supervisor and then compared it to by Vonnegut or maybe by Tolstoy, would they be able to tell what style was typical of the period? For that matter, if they only had Vonnegut and Tolstoy what comparisons could they draw?

I realize this doesn't really dispute your conclusion but, without having read the articles you linked, it doesn't seem like there is enough information to draw much of a conclusion here.

That being said, it is fascinating stuff.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by creekster

So if one thousand years from now, after all other records of our era had been destroyed, somebody stumbled across an internal memo from a utility middle manager to his superior apologizing to his supervisor and then compared it to by Vonnegut or maybe by Tolstoy, would they be able to tell what style was typical of the period? For that matter, if they only had Vonnegut and Tolstoy what comparisons could they draw?

I realize this doesn't really dispute your conclusion but, without having read the articles you linked, it doesn't seem like there is enough information to draw much of a conclusion here.

That being said, it is fascinating stuff.

I completely agree with you. You hit on archaeology's biggest flaw - one that archaeologists are usually reluctant to admit: they excavate one room in one house in one city and claim conclusions that apply to entire regions. Although there's no real alternative, their conclusions can be a little sweeping.

From this point of view, the Lachish letters are practically worthless in a comparative sense. I would only gently pick on Nibley's exaggerations in this respect since scholars continue to haggle over the letters' exact text and meanings.

Bea Halpurn's review (the most current thing on the subject) notes that Old World archaeologists are often too eager to make a Biblical connection. I think LDS scholars might be guilty of similar enthusiasm with respect to the Book of Mormon. At any rate, I've discharged my promise to seek out the written record most contemporaneous with Lehi and Nephi.

And no, Arch, I unfortunately don't have Hebrew. That language looks really hard (you should learn it and translate everything for me).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I completely agree with you. You hit on archaeology's biggest flaw - one that archaeologists are usually reluctant to admit: they excavate one room in one house in one city and claim conclusions that apply to entire regions. Although there's no real alternative, their conclusions can be a little sweeping.

From this point of view, the Lachish letters are practically worthless in a comparative sense. I would only gently pick on Nibley's exaggerations in this respect since scholars continue to haggle over the letters' exact text and meanings.

Bea Halpurn's review (the most current thing on the subject) notes that Old World archaeologists are often too eager to make a Biblical connection. I think LDS scholars might be guilty of similar enthusiasm with respect to the Book of Mormon. At any rate, I've discharged my promise to seek out the written record most contemporaneous with Lehi and Nephi.

And no, Arch, I unfortunately don't have Hebrew. That language looks really hard (you should learn it and translate everything for me).

I'm currently struggling through Greek and working on Arabic, before I go to Hebrew.[yeah I read some of the letters, but Arabic is totally cool just in reading it. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm]

Arabic is kicking my butt so I don't know what to do with Hebrew. It's not as fluid as Arabic. I also kinda like Aramaic; it's really cool, but not too many speak it.

You failed to answer one of my many Greek questions. It seems most verbs are omega verbs with a few IMAI verbs. Are those the only base form endings for verbs. Is there also some basic vocabulary building exercises. Reading the Bible helps but it doesn't help when reading Plutarch or especially Homer. Any hints for vocab building?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm currently struggling through Greek and working on Arabic, before I go to Hebrew.[yeah I read some of the letters, but Arabic is totally cool just in reading it. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm]

Arabic is kicking my butt so I don't know what to do with Hebrew. It's not as fluid as Arabic. I also kinda like Aramaic; it's really cool, but not too many speak it.

You failed to answer one of my many Greek questions. It seems most verbs are omega verbs with a few IMAI verbs. Are those the only base form endings for verbs. Is there also some basic vocabulary building exercises. Reading the Bible helps but it doesn't help when reading Plutarch or especially Homer. Any hints for vocab building?

I took a quarter of Arabic before I realized there were easier electives out there (hello, Pistol Marksmanship!).

There are really two types of verbs - the regular "omega" verbs and the "mi" verbs. Practically all verbs in Greek can be Omega or -"mai" verbs. It depends on the voice (active or passive). Some are more common in one voice than the other and some only exist in one voice, so that's how they're classified.

The other form is the 'mi' verbs, most common ones like eimi (both of them - to go and to be). So, I'm jumbling this answer, but essentially the omega endings are active 1st person singular, the -mai endings are 1st person middle/passive, and the -mi verbs are their own irregular creatures.

As for vocabulary, the best way to build it is to read a lot of the same author or the same time period. I go through a text once, looking up all the words that I don't know and writing them on a piece of notebook paper with notes about meaning, form, case, etc. Then, later, I read over the text again with the notes in hand. Eventually, I can read the text without the notes. Often, a word will come up that you've already noted, so you can refer back to it (or if you're like me, realize too late that you've looked the same word up 17 times). It's a process. Skipping around is cool for breadth, but you're not doing yourself any favors at being able to read fluidly. It just takes time.

The easiest prose, in my opinion, is the 4th century writers like Xenophon or Plato (although Plato's meaning is never all that easy; you know the words but what they mean is another problem altogether). Poetry is generally harder, with lots of obscure words and strange word order to keep meter.