The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye For the Book of Mormon

The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

The Lachish letters were written on potsherds just before the Babylonians came and destroyed Jerusalem around 600 B.C. They were discovered in 1938 by J.L. Starkey. These letters are an excellent control text for the opening scenes of the BofM. They have been virtually ignored by critics since their contribution to the BofM's authenticity is some of the most *powerful* available. It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.

The Lachish Letters (hereafter cited as LL) were written on potsherds just before the Babylonians came and destroyed them. Papyrus was not in supply because the war had cut the supply short. They used potsherds for the time.

Nephi in the BofM informs us that Jeremiah's words had been put into writing from time to time (rather than appearing as a single completed book), and that process was still going on at the time Lehi left Jerusalem. (1 Ne.5:13). From the LL we learn that Jeremiah himself made use of other writings circulating at the time, including the LL themselves which may be "some of the actual documents" which Jeremiah based his account of his fellow prophet Uriah - Jeremiah 38:4. This is a direct quote of LL 6 (Torczyner, "The Lachish Letters", Oxford Univ. Press, 1938, p. 18).

Nephi's father, Lehi kept a record of his happenings (1 Ne. 1:6), which Nephi abridged and transferred to his own record. This process of transmitting, compiling, commenting, and abridging that goes on throughout the BofM is the same thing we find in the LL, *both* records being written on delets or metal plates. (Hugh Nibley - "Two Shots in the Dark" in Noeld B. Reynolds, ed., "Book of Mormon uthorship: New Light on Ancient Origins", 1982, p. 106).

Preservation on the delathoth was no invention of Lehi's, because the story begins with the fetching of records already written on bronze from Laban at Jerusalem, who kept them in his personal archives, as the military governor of Jerusalem. The Copper Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls show us plainly that this idea is not absurd or carried too far.

Interestingly, John Allegro comments on the Copper Scroll that the scribe of the copper scroll: "not without reason, appears to have tired toward the end, and the last lines of writing are badly formed and rather small. One can almost hear his sigh of relief as he punched out the last two words in the middle of the final line." ("The Treasure of the Copper Scroll" (New York: Doubleday, 1960), p. 27.

This sounds like the BofM writers:

And I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates... But whatsoever things we write upon anything save it be upon plates must perish and vanish away; but we can write a few words upon plates... and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them." (Jacob 4:1-3).

Notice also the BofM emphasizing the *Egyptian* manner of keeping records in Zedekiah's day (that is, around 600 B.C.). This is exactly so in ancient history of the time, according to A.T. Olmstead, who notes that "every expedition has its two scribes, the chief with stylus and tablet, his assistant with papyrus roll or parchment and Egyptian pen." (History of Assyria, 1960, p. 583).

Lehi's bilingual education is no longer a problem. Nephi, obviously, got it correct when he noted he learned the Jewish learning as well as the Egyptian (1 Ne. 1:2). The court of Tiglath Pileser III found it necessary to possess an Aramaic scribe - namely to deal with the language, so widespread was the Egyptian tradition of record keeping at that time.

Interestingly the dating of the LL are from 597 B.C. - 588 B.C. while others cover a period of a few years. (Torczyner, p. 18).

Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we re clearly in the same time frame and same place. The two sets of documents (BofM and the LL) ought to match up pretty good. (see also, Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah" in *Journal of Near Eastern Studies*, Vol. 15, 1956, p. 229-230)

They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.

LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).

Furthermore, the BofM is correct on another note. Uriah, according to Jeremiah was chased into Egypt and brought back (Jer. 36:12, 35:25; 26:22). Interestingly the scribe of Jeremiah keeps saying that the Uriah episode (Uriah was another one of the "MANY PROPHETS" - as the BofM correctly notes, who prophesied doom and was put to death for it) was at the time of Jehoiakim, but Torczyner notes that the incident rightly belongs to the reign of Zedekiah (Torczyner, p. 69 for excellent discussion). The BofM is again right on in dealing with Zedekiah and not Jehoiakim. And, as in the BofM, "the action of the LL centers around the activities of the prophets in the land, who are causing grave concern for the government." Hence Lehi's life was sought after and he had to skip town. (Nibley - Two Shots, p. 110).

The names in the LL are peculiar names, characteristic of just one period of time in Jewish History, 600 B.C., and are reflected perfectly in the BofM. Yaush is the most frequently occurring name, a high commander at Lachish. The name is not found in the Bible, but is in the BofM; Josh, a high military official commanding a force of 10,000 troops, the exact number of troops commanded in the El-Amarna Letters. (Mormon 6:14). (Nibley - "Lachish Letters", p. 51).

7 of the 9 names in letter #1 end in -yahu (Jehovah), and in all the letters there are no Baal names and no El names. The exact same situation is in the BofM. Torczyner finds many names ending in -iah (or yahu) which endings are also found in the Elephantine papyri in Egypt, which Jews were "perhaps the descendants of those Jews who after the fall of the Judaean kingdom went down to Egypt, taking with them the prophet Jeremiah." (Torczyner, p. 27).

Now what is interesting is these same Jews who went down to Egypt asked Jerusalem later if they could build a replica of Solomon's temple, and were given permission to do so! This is exactly what Nephi does, he builds a temple after the manner of Solomon's, only not as great because they lacked the materials, but it is no longer a point against the BofM, and powerfully demonstrated authentic via archaeology.

The LL name Mattanyahu (appearing at Elephantine as Mtn(i), is in the BofM both as Mathoniah and Mathoni, strictly correct for the time with the proper endings. Of the two names in the LL not ending in -yahu, one is Tb-shlm (which Torczyner renders as Tobshillem), which suggests the BofM Shilom and Shelem, while the other LL name, Hgb (Hagab) resembles the BofM name Hagoth.

The BofM has both the short and long forms in the names Amalickiah, Amaleki, and Amlici. The Elephantine form MLKih, is very suggestive (Torczyner, p. 27).

All but two of the many prophets at this time have been lost, but it is clear from both the LL and the BofM, that there were many of them. (Torczyner, p. 65). The main prophet, is as Torczyner notes, Jeremiah, but it is only by chance that we know of him! He is not mentioned in the Biblical book of Kings - it is the prophetess Huldah whom Josiah consults, an "otherwise quite unknown figure" (Torczyner, p. 71). Interestingly the people of the time were chanting that they were Jehovah's people and that from our enemies "he must redeem us." (Torczyner, p.71). This compares with Laman and Lemuel complaining that the people of Jerusalem were righteous people and would not be destroyed, so they hated Lehi, exactly as the people hated Jeremiah! (1 Ne. 17:21-22)

Jeremiah happens to mention Uriah in only a few passages and his name turns up nowhere else, though Uriah's "religious influence must have been of great extent and long standing!" (Torczyner, p. 70). Jer. 26:20 says Uriah prophesied against the city according to the words of Jeremiah.

The words of the prophets were undermining the people's morale, and so was Jeremiah (38:4), and thus we have Lehi distressed and discouraged by the preaching of the prophets as he went forth and began to prophesy to the people of his own vision of the city's destruction. He is speaking and teaching in the spirit of Jeremiah and Nephi links him up with Jeremiah's vicissitudes: "For behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison [it was a latrine!] And they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land." (1 Ne. 7:14). This is exactly what happened with Uriah who fled into the wilderness to Egypt! In fact, Torczyner suggests that Uriah hid in the hills of western Judah for a long time (p. 70), which is what Lehi and his sons did. Torczyner further says that what we are dealing with here is a type of thing, Uriah's story being told only as parallel to Jeremiah's not less dangerous position (p. 69). To their number we can comfortably add Lehi, whose story has every mark of historical authenticity.

And as the BofM leads us into the wilderness world of the Rechabites (see also Jeremiah 35!) of the desert, so the LL give us for the first time authentic and intimate reports from Jews faithfully following their God and about their inner political and religious struggle. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another witness of this fleeing into the wilderness for safety and refuge from the city's destruction. The pattern is clearly authentic and archaeologically verified to the "T".

Against the larger background of national calamity which is never lost from view, both the LL and the Lehi story are concerned with relatively narrow circles of friends and relations. Clandestine flights from the city in both stories involved family and friends; Nephi and his brothers get Ishmael to join them, for instance.

Interesting, what most ticked Laman and Lemuel off was their father and his peculiar quality of being a *visionary man*. Torczyner translates the word "ha-piqqeah", the term used for a man of prophetic calling in the Lachish Letters, as ***a visionary man*** - the EXACT words in the BofM, for the *same type of men*. (1 Ne. 2:11; Torczyner, p. 53).

If the LL reflect the mind, the struggles, sorrows, and feelings of ancient Judah in the last days of the kingdom (Torc. p. 18), so to an even greater extent does the book of Nephi, where the family is split along political lines in a tragic conflict of loyalties. And if the situation of Uriah parallels that of Jeremiah, as Torczyner says it certainly does, then even more closely does it parallel Lehi when we learn from the Latters of "a warning from the prophet to one of his friends, who is apparently in the same danger as he, himself. It is therefore a prophet fleeing from his homeland his friends, a prophet wanted by the military authorities, (p. 64) ALL of which Lehi was.

Interesting also is Torczyner saying that Jaush was the military governor of Lachish and possibly governor of the city, whose archives would probably have been housed in the region of the palace-keep. (p. 87, 12). We find the exact same thing with Laban in the BofM. He was a powerful leader in Jerusalem, "a mighty man" apparently in command of at least 50 men and possibly of 10,000, the normal size of a troop of men in ancient Judah. (1 Ne. 3:31; 4:1).

The king is a weak character in both stories as well. And the story of Laban in the BofM, where he meets with the elders of the city *by night* and the violence and encounter he had with Nephi, all reveals a world of secret emergency sessions, tension, danger, and intrigue, exactly as we find in the Lachish Letters. It is a perfect fit.

Lehi's sons take Laban's servant, Zoram with them "that the Jews might not know concerning our flight... lest they should destroy us." (1 Ne. 4:35). Even so we see in the Lachish Letters "a prophet fleeing from his home and friends, a prophet wanted by the military authorities." (Torczyner, p. 64). Again, a perfect match.

Torczyner suggests that the prophet's warning letter would have been delivered through a little boy, most suited as an unsuspected messenger. Little boys performed such offices in the time of King David (2 Sam. 15:36, 17:17-21). They are also used today even (Torczyner, p. 68).

This idea was suggested by the mention of one Nedabyahu the NKD of the king, who delivered one letter from the prophet to one SHLM warning him of the danger he was in. (Letter 3:19-21). This NKD was the nephew of king Zedekiah himself (Torc. p. 61) He was not a direct descendant, but he was the offspring or descendant, the meaning of NKD. In the Septuagint, NKD simply means *seed*. The BofM calls this *the seed of Zedekiah*.

After the child delievered the letter, the safest thing for the child to do was go with those he warned of the danger, since the family was killed. Torczyner suggests the date 590-588 B.C. for this episode and the BofM says eleven years after Lehi left Jerusalem - in 589 B.C. - a company excaped from the land of Jerusalem bearing with them the youngest family member of Zedekiah (Notice the PERFECT fit in the dates!), the only member of the family who would not have been put to death, and it is from these people that the Nephites later learn that Jerusalem really was destroyed.

"Will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the *seed* of Zedekiah are with us, and that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem?" (Hela. 8:21)

We aren't told that Mulek was the leader, but as the sole survivor of the royal family, he was certainly the most important person in the company, a source of legitimate pride to the group. The name TELLS EVERYTHING. *Mulek* is NOT found in the Bible, but it is a diminutive, a term of affection and endearment in Semitic languages, meaning *little king*. What could the group call the uncrowned child, last of the line, but their little king? And what could they call themselves but Mulekiyah, or *Mulekites*? (Nibley - "Lachish Letters", p. 54) THIS IS PERFECT CORRELATION IN EVERY WAY.

The Lachish Letters show us correct name forms, correct political situations, correct religious situations, correct economic situations, correct historical situations, correct battle situations, correct dates, and correct correlations with the BofM MULEKITES. Each and every single situation is perfectly correlated and rightly stressed and discussed in the BofM for the first 22 pages! The BofM is CLEARLY an ANCIENT TEXT dealing correctly with Jerusalem, 600 B.C. Archaeology has demonstrated this MOST CLEARLY.