Skip to main content

News on Nahom/Nihm

            For a long time now, one of my biggest interests in all of Book of Mormon research has been the correlation of the place called Nahom in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 16:34) and the tribal territory known as Nihm. In the late 1990s some altars verifying the existence of the Nihm tribe and territory in Lehi’s day were brought to the attention of LDS scholars. Many Latter-day Saints consider this the best evidence for the Book of Mormon to date.

So, as you might imagine, I was quite excited to see that the BYU Studies Quarterly published an article last month by Warren P. Aston – the first Latter-day Saint to do in-depth research on the history of the Nihm tribal territory – providing a summary of the previous research and some updates. Aston may be more than just the LDS authority on Nihm – he is, arguably, the world authority on the tribal name and territory. In the past (1995), Aston presented on the tribal origins of Nihm at the Seminar for Arabian Studies, held at Cambridge University, Eng. This isn’t all that surprising, since the tribe has been of little interest to non-LDS scholars, but it is worth recognizing Aston’s level of expertise. With that, I thought I would share a few of the more interesting updates here:

  1. The dating of the altars was originally believed to be the end of the seventh-century beginning of the sixth-century BC. As recently as 2008, Aston himself wrote “all the altars date between the seventh and sixth centuries BC.” More specifically, the altars were believed to date to between 630-580 BC. Clearer translations of the altars and better identification of the rulers mentioned in the inscriptions has pushed the dating back to between 800-700 BC. This removes any potential question that the existence of Nihm pre-dates Lehi’s journey into Arabia. (Any doubt before was slim.)
  2. The catalyst for research on Nihm was the discovery of the tribal name (spelled Nehhm) on an eighteenth-century map. Overtime, more and more of these maps were discovered. In 2008, James Gee published an article – which included full-color photographs – documenting 10 such maps. According to Aston, now 20 such maps are known. Since these maps pre-date the Book of Mormon, some people point to them as Joseph Smith’s source. This is problematic for several reasons (which I have articulated elsewhere), but a few that Aston identifies are: (a) Nehhm/Nehem is only one of hundreds of names on these maps, and it doesn’t stand-out amongst the other names; (b) None of the maps indicate the eastward travel-ablity from the Nihm tribal area, something unique to that location and clearly indicated in the Book of Mormon; and (c) Aston notes that documenting a tribal name and territory back three-thousand years is rare, and “likely unprecedented” in Arabian archeology – this means that some critics would have us believe that Joseph Smith looked at a map with hundreds of place-names and arbitrarily selected the one name that we now know existed when Lehi was supposed to have traveled there (and is in the one place that we now know they could travel east, as the text says). A statistical improbability, to say the least.
  3. Most interesting, Aston has tracked down additional inscriptions that feature the tribal and/or territorial name Nihm. Aston does not provide a lot of detail regarding the dating of these inscriptions, but he notes that some of them may be older than the altars, and mentions that two palm leave stalks date to at least the fourth-century BC.  

Aston has a forthcoming book, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting of the Book of Mormon, that may provide more information on Nihm and other aspects of Lehi’s journey, like the “Bountiful” land where Nephi and his brothers built the ship they sailed to the promised land in. 


  1. "Aston has a forthcoming book, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting of the Book of Mormon, that may provide more information on Nihm and other aspects of Lehi’s journey, like the “Bountiful” land where Nephi and his brothers built the ship they sailed to the promised land in."

    I like "Lehi of Arabia" better, myself. Too bad we probably can't get Peter O'Toole to star in that one.

  2. NHM and the way the Anti-Mormons handled its discovery, activated me back into the church several years ago. Ishmael's body is really burried there.

    How about Robert DeNiro as Lehi. "Laman Lemuel, I've heard some tings!"


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

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…