Refuting Gabriel Hughes' Misinformed Arguments against the Book of Mormon

Gabriel Hughes, an Evangelical Protestant, made the following “arguments” against the Book of Mormon:

Throughout the Book of Mormon, there are multiple ways Smith displayed a lack of understanding regarding languages. For example, Alma, for whom the book of Alma is named, is a Hebrew name which means “Betrothed Virgin.” It would not have been the same of a man. In 1 Nephi 2:5, Smith used the name Sam, an American name. Samuel is the Jewish name. In Jacob 7:27, Smith uses the word “Adieu,” which is French, a language that did not exist in the 6^th century B.C. when the book of Jacob was purportedly written.

These discrepancies are significant enough to reveal the faults of a man. They would not have been errors made by one of God’s messengers and especially not God himself. (Gabriel Hughes, 40 Mormon Beliefs and What the Bible Says: Comparing the Word of Joseph Smith to the Word of God [2d ed; 2016, 2019], 24-25)

This only shows that the author has engaged in zero research on the Book of Mormon and scholarship supporting both its historicity as well as refuting (nonsensical) “arguments” like the above.

Firstly, it should be noted that Hughes’ “arguments” come from the work of Marian Bodine. In a footnote to the above (p. 25 n. 11), we read:

Credit to Marian Bodine and the Creation Research Institute, Article ID: DM192, June 9, 2009.

Even here, Hughes messes up—it is the Christian (not Creation) “Research” Institute, and the article DM192 (“The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon [or common sense]”), whence Hughes’ arguments in the above paragraph, were soundly refuted by Latter-day Saint apologist D. Charles Pyle:

Review of Marian Bodine, The Book of Mormon vs. the Bible (or common sense) (PDF)

Take the complaint about the name “Alma.” As John Tvedtnes wrote in his Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon (presented at the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 2001):

the name of the prophet Alma, long attacked by critics as feminine in form in both Spanish and Hebrew (if written עלמה), is now known from one of the Bar Kochba documents, where we read of one אלמא בן יהודה (40). It is also known from the medieval place-name עלמה in Eretz Israel (41). Alma is also attested as a masculine personal name at Ebla (42). The final aleph (43) suggests that the name may be hypocoristic (44)

Notes for the Above

(40) Yigael Yadin, "Expedition D-The Cave of the Letters," Israeli Exploration Journal 12 (1962): 250, 234; Bar Kokhba (New York: Random House, 1971), 176-7, 253. Hugh Nibley first noted the tie between the Bar Kochba document and Alma of the Book of Mormon in his review of Yadin's book in BYU Studies 14 (Autumn 1973); see also his The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret and FARMS, 1989), 282, 310. For the latest study, see David K. Geilman, "5/6Hev 44 Bar Kokhba," in M. Gerald Bradford, Ancient Scrolls from the Dead Sea (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1997), 39 and Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Alma as a Hebrew Name," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998): 72-73.

(41) Several medieval rabbis visited the town of Alma, which they indicated was still inhabited by Jews, though the country was under Arab domination. The site is mentioned in the writings of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, who visited in 1163 .E.; Rabbi Samuel ben Samson, who visited in 1210 in company with Rabbi Jonathan the priest; Rabbi Jacob, who spent the years 1238-1244 in Eretz Israel; Isaac Chelo, who visited in 1334; and Rabbi Judah, who visited in 1552. From archaeological evidence, the town was occupied during the biblical and talmudic times and several prominent rabbis of the first century C.E. are buried there. Excavations on the site have uncovered a synagogue of the third century, rock-hewn tombs, and various brief Hebrew inscriptions carved in stone. The ancient site is comprised within the modern Israeli moshav Almah, in the far north of Israel, north of the city of Safed, and near the Lebanese border. While the name of the modern moshav is spelled עלמה, like the Hebrew word for "young woman," the name of the ancient town has a different spelling, עלמא. The aleph/ayin interchange was already known in Hebrew.

(42) Terrence L. Szink, "Further Evidence of a Semitic Alma," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999): 70.

(43) Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In Greek it is translated as alpha.

(44) Hypocoristic names are shortened forms, usually omitting the divine name. For example, "Mike" would be hypocoristic for "Michael," leaving off the divine element El.

With respect to Bar Kokhba, here is the relevant portion from Yigael Yadin’s book:

On the twenty-eighth of Marheshvan, the third year of Shimeon bar Kosiba, President of Israel; at En-gedi. Of their own free will, on this day, do Eleazar son of Eleazar son of Hitta and Eliezer son of Shmuel, both of En-gedi, and Tehina son of Shimeon and Alma son of Yehudah, both of Luhith in the coastal district of 'Agaltain, now residents of Engedi, wish to divide up amongst themselves the places that they have leased from Yehonathan son of Mhnym the administrator of Shimeon ben Kosiba, President of Israel, at En-gedi. ... (Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba, [New York: Random House, 1971] p. 176)

Here is the relevant image, showing “Alma son of Yehudah” (אלמא בן יהודה):

To add to the discussion, here is the entry for אלמא in David J.A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 1: א (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 294:

Another argument against the Book of Mormon relates to there being (valid) temples outside of Jerusalem, another old canard that modern scholarship has soundly refuted. As Hughes writes:

The Book of Mormon talks about worship and sacrifice conducted in Hebrew temples in the Americas prior to Jesus’ appearance. This is also a contradiction of Scripture, for God had chosen the place of the temple, and that place was Mount Moriah in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:36, 2 Chronicles 3:1). (p. 99 n. 66)

Commenting on temples and other cultic sites outside of Jerusalem, including that of Elephantine (see Jeff Lindsay’s discussion here), Jarl E. Fossum, retired professor of New Testament at the University of Michigan, wrote the following:

It has become increasingly clear that the Deuteronomic requirement that God should be worshipped in only one place was not recognized at once and by all. There were post-Deuteronomic temples of Jews in Egypt, both in Elephantine and Leontopolis, and possibly also in Transjordan and Babylonia. For the possible existence of a Jewish temple at the Transjordanian centre of the Tobiads, see A. Spiro, “Samaritans, Tobiads, and Judahites in Pseudo-Philo”, PAAJR, 20, 1951, pp. 314 f.; cp. P.W. Lapp, “The Second and Third Campaigns at ‘Araq-el-‘Emir”, BASOR, 171, 1963, pp. 8 ff For the possible existence of a Jewish temple in Babylonia, see L.E. Browne, “A Jewish Sanctuary in Babylonia,” JTS, 17, 1916, pp. 400 ff.; cp. Early Judaism, Cambridge, 1929, pp. 53 ff. See also Cross, Jr., “Aspects”, p. 208; Coggins, pp. 101 f., 112 f. Regarding the Elephantine colonists, the epistolary intercourse between these immigrants and the authorities in Jerusalem shows that the former were not regarded as schismatics. Rowley, “Sanballat”, p. 188 (= Men of God, p. 268), does not think that the Jerusalem authorities would have found the building of the Samaritan temple so unacceptable, since they would not like to have Northerners worshipping in Jerusalem. (Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985; repr., Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2017], 37 n. 27, emphasis added)

For more on the Temple at Elephantine, see:

Israelite Temples outside Jerusalem (from The Pronaos blog)

Lessons from the Elephantine Papyri Regarding Book of Mormon Names and Nephi's Temple (from LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay)

For a recent scholarly work on Elephantine, including the temple and how the officials at Jerusalem accepted the validity thereof, see:

Gard Granerød, Dimensions of Yahwism in the Persian Period: Studies in the Religion and Society of the Judaean Community at Elephantine (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft volume 488; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018)

On the topic of (accepted) sacrificial sites outside of Jerusalem, Jacob Milgrom wrote:

It must be borne in mind that the book of Deuteronomy forbids only blood sacrifices outside the central sanctuary: “you must bring everything I command you to the site that the Lord your God will choose to establish his name: your burnt offerings and other slain offerings, your tithes and contributions, and all choice votive offerings that you vow to the Lord” (Deut 12:11; cf. vv. 6, 14, 27). Even H, which prohibits all worship outside the Tabernacle, in effect, also limits itself to blood sacrifices: “If any person of the house of Israel or of the aliens who reside among them sacrifices a burnt offering or another slain offering, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to the Lord that person shall be cut off from his people (17:8-9). Thus, all cultic laws in the Bible that prescribe that legitimate worship is possible only on one authorized altar (cf. Josh 22:23) limit this prescription to blood sacrifices without even mentioning incense.

Positive evidence of an independent incense offering can be derived from the fact that “eighty men came from the Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, their bears shaved, their garments torn, and their bodies gashed, carrying cereal offerings and frankincense to present at the House of the Lord” (Jer 41:5)—after the Temple had been destroyed! This event gave rise to the later ruling, “R. Gidel said in the name of Rab: (even) after an altar is destroyed, it is permitted to offer incense at its site” (b. Zebaḥ 59a). T. Levi, composed at the end of the Second Temple period, speaks of “archangels” who serve and offer propitiatory sacrifices to the Lord (in the heavenly sanctuary) on behalf of all the sins of ignorance of the righteous ones. They present to the Lord a pleasing odor, a rational and bloodless oblation (T. Levi 3:5-6). Thus, at all times, regardless of whether the Temple was standing or destroyed, it was not uncommon for the people to worship the Lord at that site or anywhere else by means of incense offerings.

Only against this customary background is it possible to explain the request made by Elephantine Jewry of Bagohi, the governor of Judah, Johanan the high priest, and his colleagues, the priests, to rebuild their temple: “they shall offer the cereal offering, incense and burnt offering on the altar of God” (Cowley 1923:30.25; cf. 30.18-21; 31.21, 25, 27). From Bahohi’s response, it follows that permission was granted except for the burnt offering (Cowley 1923:32.9-10). The Jews of Elephantine accepted his terms: “n[o] sheep, ox, or goat is offered there as a burnt offering, but only incense, cereal offering, and [libations].” (Cowley 1923: 33.10-11; cf. Porten 1968:291-92). Thus both the religious and civil authorities, Jews and non-Jews alike, permitted bloodless sacrifices outside Jerusalem, including incense. (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3; N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991], 629-30)

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the text 11Q19 (AKA 11QT^a and 11QTemple^a), if one is three days away from Jerusalem, one was allowed to set up a sacrificial altar and engage in cultic (temple) sacrifice. In 11QT 52:13-16, we read:

And you shall not plough with an ox and an ass together. You shall not slaughter an ox, or sheep or he-goat which are pure in any of your gates which are nearer than three days' walk from my temple, but instead you shall slaughter it inside my temple, making it into a burn-offering or peace offering; and you shall eat and rejoice before me in the place where I shall choose to put my name upon it.

While critics of the Book of Mormon like Hughes continue to repeat old canards which have long been refuted and not engage with the serious scholarship and research in favour of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints are justified in not taking them seriously.