In my years of studying this issue, certain details have drawn my attention more than others.  The most obvious example is the fact that I focus solely on the Mesoamerican question.  There are many Book of Mormon scholars who address the Hebraic connections in the Book of Mormon, and I ignore that completely in this article.  The reason for this is that I do not view possible Hebraic connections as compelling evidence either for, or against, the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon.  In his book Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, on page 45, quotes David Hume in a manner that illustrates why I am disinterested in the possible Hebraic connections in the Book of Mormon. 

 

     “Hume distinguished between “antecedent skepticism,”, such as Rene Descartes’

     method of doubting everything that has no “antecedent” infallible criterion for belief:

     and “consequent skepticism,” the method Hume employed, which recognizes the

     “consequences” of our fallible senses but corrects them through reason:  “A wise

     man proportions his belief to the evidence.”  Better words could not be found for a

     skeptical motto.

 

Even more important is Hume’s foolproof, when-all-else-fails analysis of miraculous claims.  For when one is confronted by a true believer whose apparently supernatural  or paranormal claim has no immediately apparent natural explanation, Hume provides an argument that he thought so important that he placed his own words in quotes and called them a maxim:

 

           The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention),

          “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be

           be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact

           which it endeavors to establish.”

 

          When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately

          consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either

          deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really

          have happened.  I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according

          to the superiority, which I discover, pronounce my decision, and always

          reject the greater miracle.  If the falsehood of his testimony would be more

          miraculous than the event which he relates;  then, and not till then, can he

          pretend to command my belief or opinion.  ([1758] 1952, p. 491)

 

 The Hebraic side of the Book of Mormon argument makes certain claims regarding connections in the linguistic structure or background elements of the Book of Mormon story that correlate with what scholars today accept about ancient Israel and its culture and language.  The problem for accepting the miracle the Book of Mormon scholars claim is this: these elements can also be demonstrated to be within the bank of nineteenth century knowledge, as well.  The response that Book of Mormon scholars may make in turn is that critics cannot place this actual knowledge or material within Joseph Smith’s hands.  While there were maps that contained the toponym NHM, for example, critics cannot prove Joseph Smith ever had access to them.  While the structure of chiasmus was known in the nineteenth century, and is a literary form that is found in many texts from different time periods, critics cannot prove that Joseph Smith was aware of chiasmus and made deliberate use of it. 

 

In reality, this challenge is even less arduous than the one Hume describes, because there are two immediately apparent natural explanations to counter the one miraculous explanation.  One is that Joseph Smith, like other people in that time period, was immersed in Biblical language and stories from infancy onward.  In fact, children were often taught to read through the memorization of Biblical verses during the nineteenth century, and families often entertained themselves in the evening by reading from the Bible.  In addition, it is accepted that this particular time period and place was the site of intense religious speculations, replete with competing preachers and revival meetings, as well as references in media to religious claims and ideas.  We know that Joseph Smith’s entire family was very engaged in this topic and attended some of these various meetings.  It is certain that at least some of the preachers of the time period had made extensive study of the Bible and its geography, and could have included said references in their oral exhortations on the subject.  In addition, Joseph Smith would have had access to a respectable public library, known to have contained pertinent books such as The View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith.  Critics cannot possibly prove anything about what Joseph Smith might or might not have been exposed to, but critics can demonstrate that the knowledge referred to on the Hebraic side of the equation was accessible in the nineteenth century. 

 

Moreover, some theories regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon propose that Joseph Smith was not the sole author, and may have had input from more informed sources, such as Sidney Rigdon.  Although I have not made this my primary study, due to my conviction that it will never be possible to prove the most pertinent points, I am inclined to believe that Sidney Rigdon did have more involvement in the production of the Book of Mormon then he was willing to admit. He definitely would have had access to these ideas and background information regarding ancient Israel that some Book of Mormon scholars point to as supporting evidence of the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon.

 

So, keeping Hume’s maxim in mind, I conclude that it is far less miraculous and far more likely to conclude that Joseph Smith, in some way, either through exposure or help in authorship, accessed knowledge available to nineteenth century Biblical students, than it is to conclude that the possible Hebraic connections provide evidence of an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon.

 

The case for the natural explanation regarding possible Hebraic connections is made stronger when one considers the anachronistic content of the Book of Mormon.  In his book The Religions of Ancient Israel, A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, Ziony Zevit cautioned:

 

     “Reduction, in the phenomenological context, involves bracketing out the

     observer’s preconceived, culturally bound, explanatory paradigms and all

     prejudices incompatible with and foreign to the observed culture.  It involves

     concentrated thinking, conscientious self-criticism and self-analysis, as well

     as the active criticism of others.  For example, in observing the culture of

     ancient Israel it is first of all necessary to bracket out all (theological) notions

     of deity that are post-Kantian, or that are derived even indirectly from

     Neo-Platonism and Neo-Aristotelianism.  Ancient Israelite thinking was

     pre-scholastic and pre-Aquinas and pre-Christian and pre-Jewish.  As a

     consequence, certain distinctions between categories of being and of thought

     shared by most contemporary scholars, heirs of Western philosophic developments

     since the thirteenth century CE, distinctions that fill this chapter, cannot be

     ascribed to Israelite thought.  They were foreign to that culture and not

     part of Israelite consciousness;  consequently, evaluative distinctions made

     nowadays between knowledge of observable nature, knowledge of things

     passed down in oral tradition, and knowledge of intuited or of revealed matters,

     were not made then.  Contemporary scholars have no reason to suppose, then,

     that Israelites considered faith and reason separate categories of thinking and

     experience or that they conferred different kinds of validity on their subject

     matter.

 

     Phenomenological reduction must bracket out contemporary understandings

     of monotheism;  post-Enlightenment notions of evolution, progress, and

     development;  all post-geographical knowledge about the shape of the

     planet and the global distinctions of populations and natural resources;

     information about microbes and contemporary understandings of pathogenesis

     and mental illness, weather patterns, economics, gender roles, women, children,

     slavery, war, kingship, animal sacrifice, early death, astrology, and magic.

     The bracketing process, if not thought through, may cause one to miss the

     mark entirely.” (p25)

 

While this citation cautions readers from inserting modern ideas into ancient text, it is useful in that it outlines several concepts that were foreign to ancient Israel, and yet can be found in the Book of Mormon.

 

Due to the fact that the study of history as a science evolved to this point largely after Joseph Smith’s time period, it is not unreasonable to assume that even Biblical scholars would make errors during that time period that contemporary scholars would today avoid.  In fact, the evolution of Biblical scholarship has been even slower in the United States than in Europe and Germany in particular.  So it is not inconsistent to posit that certain known Hebraic connections could have been deliberately included in the production of the Book of Mormon, particularly when it was designed to mimic the Bible, while at the same time included anachronisms that would be unacceptable by today’s standards.    

 

Often believers ask what would convince a skeptic like me to at least take a second look at the possible ancient origin of the Book of Mormon.  The answer, to me, is the same as it would be for any other text of questionable authenticity and uncertain provenance.  That answer would be that the book included information completely unknown to the nineteenth century students and scholars, but was later verified through subsequent research.  This points me, once again, straight towards Mesoamerica, which, as of nineteenth century America, was a minefield of unknown information that could later be verified.