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

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…

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

New Paper on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Joseph M. Spencer, an adjunct professor at the BYU religion department, recently published a paper in the non-LDS peer review journal Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception, titled, “Isaiah 52 in the Book of Mormon: Note’s on Isaiah’s Reception History.” Spencer is a young scholar who is doing exciting stuff on the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective.
The paper is described as follows in the abstract: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of Mormonism to American religion, little attention has been given to the novel uses of Isaiah in foundational Mormon texts. This paper crosses two lines of inquiry: the study of American religion, with an eye to the role played in it by Mormonism, and the study of Isaiah’s reception history. It looks at the use of Isa 52:7–10 in the Book of Mormon, arguing that the volume exhibits four irreducibly distinct approaches to the interpretation of Isaiah, the interrelations among which are explicitly meant to speak to nineteent…