A common criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it contains Greek terms and names that are anachronistic, and as a result, shows that the volume is ahistorical. This criticism ignores a number of things, not the least is that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation; therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon has been rendered is not that from which, according to its own claims, it was translated.
A parallel would be the argument that the word “adieu” in the Jacob 7:27 “proves” the Book of Mormon to be ahistorical as French was not in existence during the time Jacob lived. However, this argument ignores a number of things, such as (1) adieu was adopted into the English language and was in use during the time of Joseph Smith as seen, for instance, in Webster’s 1828 dictionary; (2) other translated works, such as Schaff’s translation of Patristic writings, contain “adieu” (e.g. Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 4.8.3; Theophilus to Autolycus, 2.1; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 10).
To understand the silliness of this argument, think of a critic of the Bible claiming that the KJV (or any other translation) is false as “in the beginning” are English terms, and English did not exist when Gen 1:1 was written.
Here are some notes on some of these Greek terms:
Alpha and Omega:
“Alpha and Omega” in the Book of Mormon is an accepted English expression and we may view it as the best way of conveying the meaning of a certain Nephite expression to English readers. The purpose of a translation is to transmit meanings, not words. “Alpha and Omega” makes more sense and is more recognizable to English readers than the Hebrew equivalent, “Aleph and Tau.”
Antipas and Antipus:
Surprisingly, the names “Antipas” and “Antipus” seem to be derived from Egyptian. Budge has a place name entry Anttepus (Budge, Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, volume 2). It is interesting to note that there are spellings in Egyptian that very much sound like those in the Book of Mormon when the Book of Mormon was said to be derived from a “reformed Egyptian” script.
Archeantus:
In numerous Afro-Asiatic (and especially Northwest Semitic) languages there exist the “arch” preposition (or a similar sounding word) without being derived from the Greek version. Examples include the Egyptian names Arqchech, Ark-t and Arkhekh, etc, so it is obvious that the “arch” phoneme is not absent from Egyptian and might be expected in names in the Book of Mormon.
Jonas:
This simply reflects KJV NT influence on Joseph Smith at a translation level. Instead of transliterating the Hebrew יוֹנָה as yonah, the more familiar Jonas was used.
The Bible often uses Greek names in the Old Testament for reasons of translation style. Examples include Moses, Solomon, Samuel, Job and Eve. Their Hebrew names are Mosheh, Shlomoh, Shmuel, ‘Eyob and Chawwah respectively. We can say the same thing about what Joseph Smith did.
Timothy:
The name
"Timothy" means one who honours/fears God. In Greek, it is rendered
Τιμόθεος. It also appears in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 19:4).
Assuming
that Timothy (Τιμόθεος) is Joseph Smith's rendering of the name, the
underlying name on the plates could be something like הדריה or הדריהו or something like that, such as הדראל. The Hebrew equivalent for Timothy (in a
hypocoristic form [i.e., without the "divine name" element]) (הדר) appears at Genesis 36:39 as the name of the
king of Pau:
And Baalhanan the son of Achbor died, and
Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's
name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
So the
Semitic equivalent of "Timothy" is attested in the book of Genesis.
It is also be attested in 1 Chron 1:50:
And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in
his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel,
the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
"Hadad"
(הֲדַד) in 1 Chron 1:50 is the same
person as "Hadar" (הֲדַר) in Gen 36:39. It appears that
later scribes of the Hebrew Bible may have made the common mistake of confusing
resh (ר) with daleth (ד). That this may just be the case can be seen in the LXX of 1
Chron 1:50 which renders the name as Αραδ Arad, not Αδαδ Adad.
"Timothy" is not an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.
Ezias:
The Tanners and Richard Packham have made the argument that this name is Greek in etymology, coming from “Esaias”; however, the truth is that this name is not a derivative of the Greek adaptation for Isaiah. This name can be found 1 Esdras 8:2 in the KJV apocrypha. It refers instead to the Hebrew “Uzzi.” For reasons of translation style (see my note under the discussion of “Timothy”) Joseph employed “Ezias.”
Angola:
In my opinion, critics such as Packham grasps at straws in his effort to show that the etymology for “Angola” in the Book of Mormon is from the Greek for angel (“angolos”). There is too great a difference in relation to spelling and pronunciation for this argument to be taken seriously.
Judea:
The same form of this name occurs in the KJV Old Testament at Ezra 5:8. It is a word (Yehud) that is derived from the tribe of Judah. If the KJV translators can do it, why can’t Joseph Smith?
Zenos:
The name “Zenos” is said by many Latter-day Saint scholars to be derived from the Hebrew name “Enos” and need not have any Greek roots.
Lachoneus:
Many critics allege that the name ‘Lachoneus’ is a Greek name derived from the Greek Lakonios meaning “Laconian.” At first blush, it does seem like a romanized version of a Greek gentillic. But one must go beyond the gentillic to the underlying etymology. Take, for example, the Semitic expression “Kn’ny.” On the surface, it appears to be “Canaanite” but also could mean “westerner” or merchant” based on etymology.
While it could be a Greek word, it could also be a corruption of an Egyptian phrase rekh nesu ("l" and "r" being interchangeable in Egyptian and other languages, including Hebrew), referring to a "royal kinsman" as a formal title.
While it could be a Greek word, it could also be a corruption of an Egyptian phrase rekh nesu ("l" and "r" being interchangeable in Egyptian and other languages, including Hebrew), referring to a "royal kinsman" as a formal title.
One final note—it should be kept in mind that non-LDS scholars disagree with Richard Packham and other critics who claim there was no Greek contact with the ANE until after the time of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem. The Ugaritic texts, dating from 1350-1150 BC, contain Greek names in their onomasticon. Furthermore, there were contacts through trade between Greece and the ANE prior to the time of Lehi et al. For a discussion of some of the issues, I would suggest the following:
Cyrus Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations
Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
Robin Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes: In the Epic Age of Homer