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

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…

Unpublished Book by John L. Sorenson Now Available Online

Whether critics of the LDS faith know it or not, John L. Sorenson’s work on transoceanic voyaging in pre-Columbian times has garnered considerable respect among at least some non-LDS scholars. His publications on the subject span across six decades, and appear in a variety of peer-reviewed and academic publications, such as El México Antigo, New England Antiquities Research Association Newsletter, Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts (published by the University of Texas Press), Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World (published by the University of Hawai’i), and Sino-Platonic Papers (published by the University of Pennsylvania).
He has co-published a 2-volume annotated bibliography of the literature on pre-Columbian contacts, which received some positive reviews. He also co-wrote (with a non-Mormon scholar) World Trade and Biological Exchange before 1492, detailing all the biological evidence for transoceanic contact before Columbus. In a letter thanking Sorenso…