Skip to main content

THE NAME “SARIAH” – FROM “BLUNDER” TO “BULL’S EYE”

The name “Sariah” presents a particularly interesting case for the Book of Mormon’s historical authenticity. In that volume, it is the name of a Hebrew woman living in Jerusalem around 600 BC who departs with her husband and children into the wilderness to seek a new home, in a distant “promised land” (see 1 Nephi 2:5).


In 1830, this name could have easily been viewed as case-in-point evidence that Joseph Smith was just making the whole Book of Mormon up, creating inauthentic “Hebrew sounding” names by cherry picking name elements from the Bible. At the time, the potential Hebrew equivalent (śryh) was known in the Bible as a Hebrew male name translated as “Seraiah,” not “Sariah.”[1]  To make matters worse, a female name ending in the divine element –iah (-yah or –yahu) was unconventional, because as Hugh Nibley explains, “in female names the yahu element usually comes first.”[2] In essence, everything about this name seemed be to wrong.


All of this began changed with the discovery of the Elephantine papyri at the beginning of the twentieth century. As Jeffrey R. Chadwick explains, “in a significant historical parallel to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrew name Sariah, spelled (śryh), has been identified in a reconstructed form as the name of a Jewish woman living at Elephantine in Upper Egypt during the fifth century BC.”[3]

The papyri reads (at line 4 of papyrus 22): śry[h br]t hwśʿ br hrmn (Saryah barat Hosheaª bar arman), which Chadwick translates as “Sariah daughter of Hoshea son of arman.”[4] This establishes śryh as a female Hebrew name nearly contemporaneous with the Book of Mormon account. Chadwick also explains that in light of archaeological findings, more recent scholarship has favored translating śryh as Sariah (Saryah) rather than the KJV style Seraiah (Serayah).[5]

In addition to the female name Saryah, the Elphantine papyri also contain at least one other female name (Mibtahyah) wherein the divine element comes last, rather than first, thus further vindicating the generally unconventional formulation.[6]

Conclusion

In summary, the name “Sariah” appeared to be wrong on all accounts in the year 1830. It was (a) only known as a male name, (b) spelled incorrectly, and (c) an unconventional formulation for a Hebrew female name. Now, it has been corroborated on all accounts. It is (a) an authenticated female name, (b) spelled correctly, with (c) further vindication of its formulation as an authentic Hebrew feminine form by additional names. While some may wish to write this off as mere coincidence because it is only one of many names, I find the fact that this was a threefold “blunder” now turned into a  “bull’s eye” trifecta makes this much harder to dismiss than that. The fact that the two Sariah’s shared what could be called “parallel lives” serves only to further lend credence to the Book of Mormon account.[7]
All told, the name “Sariah” as found in the Book of Mormon now serves as powerful evidence of book’s ancient authenticity.


[3] Chadwick, “Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri,” pg. 6
[4] Chadwick, “Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri,” pg. 7
[5] See Chadwick, “Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri,” pg. 7-8.
[6] See Nibley, “Two Shots in the Dark,” pg. 110
[7]See  Chadwick, “Sariah in the Elephantine Papyri,” pg. 8-9

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nephite History in Context 4: The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
The Iron Dagger of King Tutankhamun
Background
The discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 was a worldwide sensation, and to this day is widely regarded as one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all-time due to the veritable treasure trove of artifacts found inside. The treasure was so great that to this day many of the items have yet to be studied. Likewise, Tutankhamun (ca. 1336–1327 bc) remains the best-known Pharaoh of Egypt in popular culture today, but details about his actual reign and accomplishments are still generally unknown among the public. Some are aware that he ascended to the throne as a mere child, about 8 years old, but few r…

Nephite History in Context 3: Vered Jericho Sword

Editor’s Note: This is the third contribution to my new series Nephite History in Context: Artifacts, Inscriptions, and Texts Relevant to the Book of Mormon. Check out the really cool (and official, citable) PDF version here. To learn more about this series, read the introduction here. To find other posts in the series, see here.
Vered Jericho Sword
Background
Vered Jericho was a small ancient Israelite fortress first excavated in the winter of 1982 by archaeologist Avraham Eitan. It’s located roughly 3.7 miles (6 km) south of Jericho proper, on the northern side of Wadi es-Suweid. The walls still stand over 6 and half feet tall (2 m) and nearly 3 feet (0.9 m) wide, with two towers on each corner flanking the gate. Inside the fort is a courtyard and two dwelling structures. The fort may have also had cultic or ritual functions as a “high place” (beit bamah). It dates to the late seventh to early sixth century BC, and was destroyed by fire, quite likely in either the Babylonian siege of …

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…