Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?

Table of Contents

Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?

Several popular criticisms of the Book of Mormon name and location "Nahom" are the following

  • It is claimed that there is no evidence dating NHM before A.D. 600.
  • It is claimed that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all.
  • It has been Claimed that Joseph Smith produced the name Nahom from one of the Biblical names Naham, Nehum, or Nahum.
  • It is claimed that the name NHM isn't actually a match for "Nahom," and that the only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT necessarily "Nahom."

Is the name NHM actually a match for "Nahom"?

Yes. It is a match, but it is not a unique match, since other words with vowels removed can match NHM.

Is the only existing pronunciation for NHM "Nahom"?

No. LDS scholars do not claim that the only existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom."

Is the only translation of the name "Nahom" to Hebrew written as "NHM"?

Yes. Remove the vowels, and the only way "Nahom" can be written is NHM.===

The issue of vowels is a non-sequitur, and the claim about the “only existing pronunciation” is just nonsense. The Book of Mormon name "Nahom" becomes NHM when the vowels are removed. Nobody is claiming that the only existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom."

Nephi’s original text would also not have had vowels and would thus just be NHM, the South Arabian tribe/territory name has been translated in a variety of ways.

The tribe and territory of NHM still exist in the area today, and local pronunciations range from “Neh-hem” to “Nä-hum,” and the name has been translated in a variety of ways, including Naham and Nahm. There is no reason “Nahom” should be considered beyond the pale. When written, Semitic languages do not need to include vowels, so the altars simply have NHM (in South Arabian), and Nephi’s record would have been no different. As such, no closer correlation in name could be asked for. (Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 8. (2014) 173.)

Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel"

Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot,  Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, (2014)
Biblical “minimalists” have sought to undermine or de-emphasize the significance of the Tel Dan inscription attesting to the existence of the “house of David.” Similarly, those who might be called Book of Mormon “minimalists” such as Dan Vogel have marshaled evidence to try to make the nhm inscriptions from south Arabia, corresponding to the Book of Mormon Nahom, seem as irrelevant as possible. We show why the nhm inscriptions still stand as impressive evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Click here to view the complete article

Notes