Skip to main content

A Note on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

For school this semester, I am reading Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (HarperOne, 1996). I am only a few pages in, but already am finding it quite interesting.

One thing that struck me is that, according to Stark, there is not a shred of archaeological evidence for Christianity before the year AD 180. That means that Christianity existed for about 150 years before they left a trace in the archaeological record. Stark, in reconstructing the growth of the Christian Church, suggests that there were about 7,535 Christians at the turn of the first century. Stark then suggests that this is due to the small number of Christians.
“The lack of anything surviving from prior to 180 must be assessed on the basis of the tiny number of Christians who could have left such traces. Surely it is not surprising that the 7,535 Christians at the end of the first century left no trace. By 180, when I project that the total Christian population first passed the 100,000 mark there would finally have been enough Christians so that it is probably that traces of their existence would survive.” (p. 9)
This raises a number of interesting questions about archaeology and what it can and cannot tell us about Scriptural history.

  1. Notice that no one assumes that Christians didn’t exist until AD 180 just because there is no trace of them in the archaeological record. As the adage goes – the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  2. At 7, 535 Christians were too small in number to show up archaeologically. If seven thousand is too small to find in the archaeological record, then what of, say, 45 persons who show up on a boat? Of course, Stark’s comments are somewhat dependent on the size of the host population, that would have been smaller in the America’s (ca. 600 BC) than in the Roman Empire, but we are still talking about a very small group of Old World migrants. Is it really reasonable to expect such a small company to leave a distinguishable trace?
  3. Of course, Book of Mormon populations did not stay tiny forever. But the demographics of the Book of Mormon come with its own set of questions. Are all the entire populations reported strictly Old World stock, or have they assimilated New World peoples? And if the latter, then how much of the population maintained any kind of connections (that might manifested in material cultural left behind) to the Old World? It is possible that the only ones who maintained any kind of cultural linkage to the Old World were the record keepers who continued to write in an Egyptian/Hebrew script.
  4. In regard to Book of Mormon demographics, professional demographer James E. Smith has provided numbers for various time periods in the Book of Mormon. Smith estimates that within a couple hundred years, the Nephites numbered between 1,000-2,000 – still well below the 7,535 Christians that go undetected in the Old World. Again, while host populations are different for the two groups, there are also other complications, like identifying exactly where to look for Nephite remains, and the fact that we are going some 600 years further back in time, in a region (and time period) that has received less professional attention from archaeologist than the Mediterranean and Ancient Near East.
  5. Stark says that Christians would have hit a population of 100,000 by the time they finally start to show up in the archaeological record. At what point do the Nephites pass such a threshold? It is impossible to tell. Smith estimates that perhaps 300,000 people were living in Zarahemla around 87 BC, with 100,000 being Nephites (as opposed to “Mulekites”). Smith gets to these numbers by using the military casualties as a basis of population estimation, a number that Smith notes is possible, demographically speaking, but yet he urges caution in accepting it. Something that must be kept in mind is that ancient population numbers tend to be inflated (Stark, in fact, talks about this on p. 5), and this holds true for military numbers in antiquity. So Nephite numbers are probably still much smaller than this, but even if we assume that Smith’s estimates are accurate, this would indicate that Book of Mormon populations didn’t reach the size at which we might expect to find archaeological remains until several hundred years after the founding groups had arrived in America. By that time, what would their archaeological “trace” look like? How much of their material culture would manifest Old World roots? How do we go about distinguishing a Nephite pottery shard from a non-Nephite one?


I wholly realize that all of the above is quite rudimentary, and while I acknowledged the difference in size of host populations, I did little to try and accommodate that in my analysis. There is a reason I framed most of this as questions rather than answers. Regardless of what the exact answers to these questions are, they are important questions that need to be asked before anyone can seriously start to think about what archaeology can and cannot tell us about the Book of Mormon. The notion that the Book of Mormon is obviously false (or, conversely, obviously true, as some members have naïvely claimed) on the basis of archaeology needs to be abandoned. Before any assessment of the “evidence” can be made, there first needs to be some understanding of what kind of relationship is to be expected between the text and archaeology. In short, one must do some serious thinking about a number of interrelated issues – and the kinds of questions I’ve posed above are only the beginning – before they can seriously opine on what the “evidence” actually indicates. 

Comments

  1. Interesting observations, and a good reminder on the difficulty of tracing small population groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jeff!

      And, I am genuinely honored to not only find that you are actually reading my blog, but that you are finding it interesting. You do great work, for which my little blog pales in comparison. Thanks for all you do.

      Also, if you liked this, you might want to check out the follow-up posted today, drawing Sorenson's new book.

      Delete

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…