The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt.  …

However, archaeologist Jim Hoffmeier of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says the number is probably far fewer, due to a mistranslation dating thousands of years.  The original Hebrew says there were 600 elith.

Hoffmeier, “The word elith can be translated 3 different ways:  it can be translated thousand.  Elith can also be translated to the clan.  The third option is that it’s a military unit, which I think is a more plausible scenario.”

According to Hoffmeier’s interpretation, instead of 600,000 men and their families, there were as few as 5000.

I was a bit surprised that the above quote was not referenced in Bible Battles, because there are quite a few points of agreement between Hoffmeier and Richard A Gabriel, PhD and author of Military History of Ancient Israel.  In the Bible Battles video, Gabriel said,

“If you read the Bible text in Hebrew, it uses the word “avadeem”.  Avadeem is not the word for slave, it is the word for “worker” or even servant.  The fact of the matter is that the Israelites in Egypt were not slaves.”

Narrator, The notion that the Israelites might not have been slaves in Egypt contradicts fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs.  But by examining the Exodus from a military perspective, new light may be shed on this historic journey.

Aaron Shugar, PhD, Archaeomettalurgy, Lehigh University, “This is a tricky subject because outside the Bible there is no definitive corroborating text that can either support or refute the fact that the Israelites were slaves.  But if we ask the simple question, could a nation of mere slaves, be able to go up against the mighty Egyptian army and survive?  Logically, it doesn’t seem like they could.”

Mark Schwartz, Professor of Anthropology, Grand Valley State University, “Now what if they weren’t slaves?  What if they actually were a group with military experience.  Remember Abraham and some of his military exploits.  Now a group of people leaving Egypt with a military arm puts a completely different spin on the story.”

Narrator, “To better understand the Exodus, one must travel back in time about 200 years to the land of Canaan.  Here Abraham and his Israelite descendants are forced to flee the land because of famine and drought.  They migrate to the eastern edge of Egpyt and settle in the land of Goshen, where the earth is fertile and flocks and crops thrive.

But some scholars believe they are also in this area fighting as mercenary soldiers in the Egyptian army.  Their job would be to serve as a first line of defense against invaders from the north.

Schwartz, “These ‘habiru’ were mercenaries, they were soldiers of fortune.  They would fight for who ever it was in their best interest at that time to fight for.  It seems like they had a good thing going in Egypt for a few hundred years.”

Narrator, “But eventually, a new pharaoh rises to power.  Some scholars believe he is Seti I, and he does not seem to care much for the Israelites.”

Exodus 1:9-10, “And he said to his people, ‘Look the Israelite people are much too numerous for us.  Let us deal shrewdly with them, so that they may not increase.  Otherwise in the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground.’

Gabriel, “The sheer location of where the habiru are in the land of Goshen, sitting astride the key route of invasion or defense of Egypt, probably convinced Seti himself, a professional warrior that something had to be done either to remove them, or weaken their influence, or at least remove them from their geographical area.  Thus it is that Seti becomes, most historians think, the pharaoh in the Bible who first sets the Israelites to physical labor.”

Narrator, “Many believe this physical labor amounts to slavery.  But this may be a historical inaccuracy.  While forced labor is practiced, some scholars believe that ownership of another person is rare at this time.”

Gabriel, “There was no slavery in Egypt right from the beginning until the end of the empire.  Well, if in fact they were not slaves set to labor, what were they?  The answer is corvee labor.  That is the term used to describe, essentially conscripted civilian workers to work on public works projects.  These people were not slaves, they were paid and they were well treated, and we know that from the military medical texts which stations military doctors with the workmen in order to make sure they are well-treated and well fed.”

Narrator, “Whether slaves or not, the demotion from soldier to common physical worker probably signaled to the Israelites that it was time to leave Egypt.”

Gabriel, “They had lost their status as noble allies.  They were now being treated like common workers.  It was time to go!”

Shugar, “So Moses says to Pharao, ‘Listen, God told me personally to lead my people out of here.  So you’ve got to let my people go.  But Pharaoh resists, then what follows is the Passover story and the plagues that wrought devastation upon Egypt.  With the 10th and final plague, the killing of the First Born,  this culminates in the pharaoh allowing the Israelites to leave Egypt.  But the Bible says something very interesting right after this episode, something that actually makes us question whether they really in fact were slaves or not.”

Exodus 13:18, “Now the Israelites went up armed, out of the land of Egypt.”

Gabriel, “It’s very clear, of course, that slaves do not march out armed from their oppressors.  So what we have is the military arm now is formed, as it had always been, to protect the rest of the habiru clan, as it begins to move out of Egypt, and reach its homeland back in Canaan.”

Narrator, “Almost immediately however, Pharoah changes his mind, and sets his army in pursuit of the Israelites.  But it is unclear exactly why Pharaoh does this.  The answer may be found in Exodus 12 verse 35.”
Exodus 12:35-36, ‘The Israelites had done Moses’ bidding and borrowed from the Egyptians objects of silver, gold, and clothing, and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people, and they let them have their request.  Thus they stripped the Egyptians.’

Gabriel, “Well, it just stretches credibility to think that the Egyptians would have done such a thing, especially so when you read the text.  The term that is used is nes-ai-al in Hebrew, which means to despoil.  What seems to have happened is that the Israelites are fleeing Egypt, they are not equipped to be in the desert.  They need food, shelter, water, animals, and what they do is they take it.  So the reason, I think one could argue, that changed in Pharoah’s mind was news that Israelites were leaving had simply raided a town, and sacked it and took all the supplies, and the text bears me out on this.  For it says, that Pharaoh found the Israelites were leaving Egypt boldly.  Keep in mind, this is not just a group of nomads.  This is a habiru group of some size with a military arm, and they used that military might to provision themselves in order to survive in the desert.”

Narrator, “In response to this possible attack, pharaoh unleashes his army in pursuit.  The hallmark of the Egyptian force is the horse-drawn war chariot.  ”

Gabriel, “The Egyptian army was armed with the lightest, fastest, and most maneuverable chariot in the world. ”

…

Narrator, “With the Egyptian chariot force in hot pursuit, the Israelites quickly leave the Nile delta area.  But now, Moses does something surprising.  According to the Bible, he turns off the main road leading to Canaan and heads into the desert.”

Gabriel, “One can only imagine what the young junior officers must have thought, and that was that Moses had lost his mind.  Why would Moses do such a thing?”

Narrator, “While the move to lead the Israelites into the desert surprises many, it seems Moses has a plan.  Some believe he is luring Pharaoh into a trap.

…

The Bible states that Moses had previously spent 40 years in this desert, and like all good military commanders, has an intimate knowledge of the terrain.  Some believe he knows exactly where he is, and exactly where he is heading, and according to the Bible, God is leading the way.”

Exodus 13:21-22, ‘The Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to guide them along the way and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light that they might travel day and night.’

Rabbi Jonathan Hecht, PhD, Temple Chaverim, Plainview, NY, “The pillar of cloud, and the pillar of fire that we read about in the Bible are what led the people through the desert and it represented the fact that God’s presence was always with them.”

Narrator, “Though the pillar of smoke and fire has religious significance, it can also be explained from a military perspective.  Ancient Egyptian stone reliefs depict a scene in which Pharaoh Ramses is sitting in front of two soldiers, each of whom is holding up a large pole.

Gabriel, “On top of one of those poles is the hieroglyph for flame, and on top of the other is the hierglyph for a closed brazzier which of course, if you put a cover on a brazzier you get smoke.”

Narrator, “Erected at the front of a marching column, a pillar of smoke and fire is a way for a military commander to communicate with the rest of his troops.”

Gabriel, “So the pillar of smoke, and the pillar of fire is a very common, at least for the Egyptians,  military mechanism for leading troops and pitching camp.”

Narrator, “At the end of the third day of marching, the Israelites make camp.  That night, Pharaoh arrives and sees the pillar of fire directly in front of him.  Pharaoh might believe that he has the upper hand.  Understanding that the pillar of fire always leads the group, it looks to him as though Moses has gotten himself turned around and is heading back to Egypt.

Gabriel, “The first rule of military tactics: always decieve your enemy as to your intentions.  Moses is trying to decieve pharaoh into thinking that he is lost in the desert.”

Narrator, “The placement of the pillar of fire seems to be integral to Moses’ strategy into losing the Egyptians because on the other side of the Israelite army is the Sea of Reeds.”

Schwartz, “Perhaps no event in the Book of Exodus, in fact the entire Bible has captured the imagination much like Moses parting the Sea of Reeds.  I mean who hasn’t seen the Cecil B. DeMille classic with Charlton Heston raising his arms and parting the Sea of Reeds.  It’s an incredible moment.  But I think if you look at it from a critical eye, especially the point of view of a military historian, what you see is that Moses is using an intimate knowledge of the terrain to defeat the Egyptian army without even raising a sword.”

Gabriel, “Night falls upon the encampments.  The pillar of smoke changes to a pillar of flame, and behind that pillar of flame is the escape route that Moses has planned.  Now anyone who’s been a soldier understands at night, you never look into a bright light.  If you look into a bright light, it affects your eyes for as much as 30 minutes.  So here you have a situation of a bright light burning in front of the Egyptians.  They can see the light, but they are blind to anything behind that light.  At the same time, in the midst of the night, and east wind begins to blow.”

Narrator, “An easterly wind mentioned in the Bible likely quite loud convinces Dr. Gabriel that the Egyptian soldiers on night watch might now be deaf, as well as blind.  It is at this point that Moses moves his people across the Sea of Reeds.”

Exodus 14:21, “Then Moses held out his arms over the sea, and the Lord drove back the sea with a strong east wind, all that night and turned the sea into dry ground.”

Narrator, “Some biblical historians believe the crossing of the Sea of Reeds occurs about 20 miles south of the Mediterranean Sea in an alluvial swamp–a swamp subject to tides.  One explanation of this phenomenon is that the tide goes out making the swamp passable.  The easterly wind is likely quickening the process.”

Gabriel, “Very simply, what probably was an alluvial swamp of perhaps 8-10 inches of water suddenly over a period of 45-50 minutes becomes dry.  At that point, the Israelites safely behind their bright light still blinding the Egyptians with the wind howling so they cannot hear, begin to withdraw across the Reed Sea.”

Narrator, “At dawn, Pharaoh discovers an abandoned camp.  He immediately gives chase.  But while the tide may be out, the ground is too soft to handle the weight of pharaoh’s chariots.”

Exodus 14:24, “At the morning watch, the Lord looked down upon the Egyptian army from a pillar of fire and cloud, and threw the Egyptian army into panic.  He locked the wheels of their chariots so that they moved forward with difficulty.”

Gabriel, “Now while stuck in this mud, probably the tide begins to come in–perhaps some people drown.  But what is important is, that tide is going to be in for almost 8 hours now.  There’s no way for pharaoh to pursue.”

Narrator, “Pharaoh would have to march 2 hours north to a crossing at a down called Migdol to continue the pursuit.  By that time, he most likely would have lost the Israelite scent.”

Gabriel, “So here you have a fine Israeli strategic and tactical commander, making great use of his knowledge of the terrrain that he had gathered throough his own life in that area.”

The Hebrews have eluded the Egyptians…”

The film then goes on to discuss Moses training warriors for the future battle for Canaan, as well as the military campaigns of Joshua.  So what do you make of the Sea of Reeds, and this theory of the Exodus?

I don’t believe that LDS scripture allows for a restriction against blacks’ holding the priesthood.  Nor do I think that LDS theology can reasonably maintain that today’s blacks are descendants of Cain or that ancient intermarriage with Canaanites perpetuated any racial curse.  Too many scriptures collide with those ideas for them to be valid.

I found this perspective intriguing and  had to learn more.

LDS people have often believed that marriage to Canaanites (who were believed to be black) excluded one from the priesthood.  Yet Allred notes that intermarriage between blacks and white occurred routinely over centuries.  He notes intermarriage occurred in diverse cultures including Egypt, Portugal and the Greco-Roman world.  He notes a problem with LDS interpretations of scriptures.  From page 40,

Secondly, even though the terms Canaanite and Negro have been used interchangeably in the LDS Church, Canaanites weren’t black and they certainly weren’t African.  Biblically, Canaanites descended from Canaan, the fourth son of Ham.  African blacks are generally believed to be descendants of Cush, the first son of Ham.  This is important because the Canaanites were those who have been referred to as the “cursed” lineage while practically nothing is said about Ham’s other children.  It was Canaan who was cursed by Noah–not specifically Ham and not Ham’s other children.  According to Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan after Ham saw his father naked and drunk and ridiculed his father to his other brothers (Gen. 9:21-25).  Before this time, Ham had been righteous: “And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed and they were called the sons of God.”  (Moses 8:13).  This scripture appears in the Pearl of Great Price, which also contains this statement:  ”And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Moses 8:27; italics mine).

These verses are particularly important because Mormon folklore contains the common belief that Ham wrongly married a descendant of Cain, bringing a curse upon himself and his descendants.  If such a commandment forbidding marriage into Cain’s lineage existed, how could Ham have contracted such a marriage and still have been considered righteous enough to get passage on the ark?   The answer has always been that Cain’s genes needed to be preserved; but this argument does not address the fact that Ham was righteous and “walked with God” after his marriage–a circumstance that, according to tradition, was impossible.

Although Canaan was not born until after the flood, there is a land of Canaan referred to in Moses 7:7 before the flood.  There is also a land of Cainan.  It is likely that both are variant spellings of the same word and refer to the same land.  This is because the Book of Moses was dictated by Joseph Smith and the two terms are homophones.  The decision to spell the antediluvian land “Canain” was entirely editorial.  Enoch came from the land of Cainan and called it “a land of righteousness unto this day” (Moses 6:42).  In Moses 7:4-8, Enoch sees a vision of the world “for the space of many generations.”  He describes how the people of Canaan (Cainan?) destroy the people of Shum.  After this, we are told the land is cursed with heat and that a blackness comes upon all the children of Canaan–it was not inherited from Cain.¹⁵

Allred continues further with this reasoning, and notes that on page 42,

Why curse Canaan for his father’s actions?….LDS theology affirms that children who repent are not punished for their ancestor’s faults.

He then quotes the 2nd article of faith, and notes some contradictions.  There are some spurious sources that claimed that Joseph Smith said that Cain could not hold the priesthood because he killed Abel.  However, if murder is the disqualifier, then all murderers should be disqualified.

If priesthood was withheld from Africans because their ancestor [Cain] was a murderer, why were King David’s descendants allowed the priesthood, for he too was a murderer?  Why are not white sons of murderers kept from the priesthood?

The Book of Abraham states that a descendant of Canaan discovered the land of Egypt and that all the Egyptians are descended from Canaan:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.  (Abraham 1:21-22)

The problem that is immediately apparent is the fact that Abraham and Joseph each married an Egyptian woman.  One response offered to counter that damaging evidence has been that the Egyptians at the time of these marriages were Semitic Hyksos who had conquered Egypt and so were not really Canaanites.  This explanation contradicts Abraham 1:21-22.  It also contradicts history.  The Hyksos held power in Egypt for a maximum of only one hundred fifty years.  If they were Egyptians during Abraham’s lifetime, it is not possible for them to still have been in power in Joseph’s day.¹⁸

On page 43, Allred notes that Hugh Nibley said that Asenath

“was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim.”²⁰ Ephraim, son of a Canaanite mother, acquired the birthright by blessing from his grandfather Jacob.  According to LDS theology, the impact of this blessing cannot be underestimated.  The birthright was the right to preside in the priesthood, as will be explained later.

Allred continues to note other discrepancies about Canaanites in the Bible, and notes that Canaanites sometimes married Israelites–the Canaanite harlot Rahab was saved in Jericho, and is an ancestor of Jesus.  (Matt 1:5)  Allred notes that Edomites (Canaanites) were allowed in the the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:7-8)  Moses also married an Ethiopian woman.  From the Bible, Allred concludes on page 45,

Little doubt remains that intermarriage between Canaanites and Israelites destroyed any chance for a pure, non-Canaanite race among the chosen seed.  One third of the house of Judah is Canaanite with an unknown portion among the other tribes.  What then can we make of the curse pronounced by Noah and of Abraham’s comments about Pharaoh’s lineage could not have the ‘right of the priesthood’? (Abr. 1:27).  It may be that Mormons have simply misunderstood those passages of scripture.

Regarding Abraham 1:27, Allred says it was Abraham that had the right to preside over the priesthood, rather than Pharaoh.  He notes that Joseph and his son Ephraim had the right to preside even though they weren’t of the Tribe of Levi.  From page 45,

even though the priesthood did not remain exclusively with Ephraim, the right to preside did.  Moses presided over Israel even though he was of the tribe of Levi.  Joseph Smith, however, claimed to be the “lawful heir” because he was of the tribe of Ephraim (D&C 86:8-11).  Since this authority was passed from father to only one son, when Noah gave it to Shem, Ham could not be the heir.  Ham and Japheth, together with their descendants, did not have the right to administer the priesthood because it was given to Shem.  Esau lost the right to Jacob.  Reuben lost the right to Joseph.  Manasseh lost that right when Jacob conferred it to Ephraim.  Each man who lost the birthright did not lose the right to be ordained to the priesthood; [page 46] rather, he lost the right to preside as the presiding high priest in a patriarchal order.  The scripture does not saw that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood; it says that he could not have the “right to the priesthood” (Abr. 1:27)  This right had been given to Shem, who in turn gave it to his successor in the patriarchal office.

Years after the right of the priesthood had been passed to Abraham, the Pharaohs were feigning claim to it from Noah.  They did not merely claim priesthood; they claimed the right to preside over the priesthood.  Pharaoh, the son of Egyptus, established a patriarchal government in Egpyt; but he was of the lineage by which he could not have the “right of the priesthood” or “the right of the firstborn,” whic belonged to Shem and his posterity.  In response to Pharaoh’s claims, Abraham states, “But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands: (Abr. 1:31; italics mine).  In other words, Abraham retained the right to preside over the priesthood.

So what do you think of Allred’s arguments?  Is there any scriptural basis in support of the priesthood ban?

Let me give a brief background on Israel, and the Lost Tribes of Israel.  We all remember that the Kingdom of Israel was a united kingdom under David and Solomon.  After Solomon’s death, the kingdom split into a northern kingdom called the Kingdom of Israel, containing the 10 tribes, and a southern kingdom called the Kingdom of Judah, containing Jerusalem and the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and part of Joseph.  The tribe of Levi (also referred to as Kohanim) was the priestly tribe, and did not receive a land of inheritance, and was sprinkled throughout the northern and southern kingdoms to take care of religious matters.  Around 700 BC, the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom.  Isaiah prophesied that if the southern Kingdom turned to God, they would be protected.  100 years later, during the life of Lehi and Jeremiah, the Babylonians took over the Assyrian territory, and took control over the Southern Kingdom as well.

The video has some really interesting claims about the lost tribes, and the Lemba, a black African tribe claiming to be Jewish.  Scholars seem to be split as to whether the lost tribes will ever be found.  Here are two different schools of thought.  The first comes from a scholar who believes the lost tribes could still exist.  The DVD refers to the term “diaspora.”  When the tribes were scattered (or dispersed), they had to learn to live their religion without a temple, so this scattering is called the diaspora.  Note this traditional Jewish dress they wear.

I also want to mention that the show’s host is Josh Bernstein.  He has some Jewish ancestry, studied archaeology in New York, and has a home in the four corners region of Utah.  He is quite an outdoorsman, and loves to do crazy stunts in his own life, and in the show.  He is both the narrator, and interviewer.  I even got a kick out of it when he uncovered a scorpion, and said, “that’s much bigger than they are in Utah.”

The DVD discusses various lost tribe claims.  Quoting from the video,

People have claimed to have found lost tribes all over the world, from Siberia to Australia.  Some of the first Europeans who landed in the Americas, assumed the natives were lost tribes, and even tried to communicate with them in Hebrew.  Historian Hillel Halkin has written a book [Across the Sabbath River] about the lost tribes, and thinks that they could still exist today.

Bernstein, “Why are you so passionate about the lost tribes of Israel?”

Halkin, “The lost tribe myth really is through Jewish eyes among other things, a story of tough Jews.  Living still like the Jews biblical ancestors:  independent, warrior-like, fearless, all the things that Jews in the diaspora, over the ages generally were not.

Bernstein, “Was this the first Jewish diaspora?”

Halkin, “Yes, We have some archaeological evidence, besides Assyrian inscriptions, to show that these Israelites were deported to various parts o the Assyrian Empire.  But after that, they disappear from history.”

Bernstein, “What’s the big deal with being a lost tribe?  What is the attraction for these people to claim ‘I was one of the lost tribes of Israel’?”

Halkin, “Well the big deal you have to understand is not so much that people are claiming to be lost tribes, but the fact that the Christian and the Jewish world have been looking for hundreds or even thousands of years, for the lost tribes.  It’s the search for the lost tribes that is the historically fascinating phenomenon.”

Contrasted by this view is another scholar.

Israel Finkelstein [Archaeologist, Te l Aviv University] believes that when they Assyrians conquered this land, they wiped out all the leadership of the tribes of Israel.  The populations was either killed or assimilated into other parts of the Assyrian Empire.  He doesn’t believe they could be found today.

…Bernstein, “What happens then to the rulers of the northern kingdom when the Assyrians come in and take over?”

Finkelstein, “The rulers were deported.  We don’t know whether all of them, part of them, most of them, many of them, we don’t have this kind of information, neither from the Bible nor from the Assyrians texts, nor from archeology.  Archaeology cannot speak about a person.  But most of this population probably assimilated in Mesopotamia.”

Bernstein, “So the people who are on a quest to find the lost tribes and recover them and bring them back to Israel, they would only have to travel as far as Mesopotamia?”

Finkelstein, “I don’t think that you can travel anywhere, and look for the lost tribes.  I mean I make a distinction between what we know from archeology, history, and so on, and all sorts of popular ideas of going this way or that way, and finding a lost tribe.  There’s no need whatsoever to go around the world, in my opinion, and look for lost tribes.”

So, let’s talk about the Lemba, who claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, just as Lehi and his descendants claim.  What I found so interesting was the fact that the first part of the journey follows the same route that Mormons believe Lehi followed, along the frankincense trail in Saudi Arabia.  The difference is that once they got to Yemen, Lehi and his group turned east, while the Lemba seem to have stayed in Yemen for a time, before heading south across the Red Sea through Africa.  Here is a map of the Lemba’s proposed route.

The Lemba’s story goes like this:  Thousands of years ago, they were forced out of Israel, and settled in a

Proposed route of Lemba

place called Sena, which is believed to be the present day Yemen.  There they lived as traders and craftsmen, until war, or natural disaster pushed them across the Red Sea and into Africa.  Then began a slow migration south.  Along the way, according to the Lemba, they built great stone cities.  It’s a claim that has fascinated archaeologists.  Why?  Because the ruins of ancient stone cities still exist in southern Africa today.”…

To help me make sense of it, I’ve asked historian Dr. Magdel Le Roux [University of South Africa, Pretoria] to come with me to the site.  She’s been studying the Lemba for years and has just published a book on the similarities between their social customs, and those of the Old Testament Israelites.

Josh Bernstein, “There are specific parallels between the religious practices of Lemba today and the religious practices of ancient Israel?”

Le Roux, “Definitely.  They’ve got remnants of an ancient type of Israelite religious practices, so in a way they concert this very special ancient type of…

Bernstein, “an old school religion”

Le Roux, “yes”

Bernstein, “But how do they maintain their religious identity?  How’d they keep it intact for so many years in this long journey from Israel down to South Africa?”

Le Roux, “That’s a good question.  I think it’s by means of oral tradition.  By keeping themselves seperate from other groups.  They lived with other peoples, moving with them, migrating down with them.  That’s one of the characteristics that they keep their culture.  They just live it.”

The Lemba claim to have built many stone cities along the way, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa.  The show quotes a few scholars who believe they have found some of these cities, and show archaeological links between Yeme, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.  While there is no archaeological evidence tying the Lemba directly to Israel, they exhibit some amazing social, musical, and religious practices that seem quite related to ancient Judaism.  The most interesting part of the show was the discussion of DNA tests which seem to indicate a Middle Eastern origin.

I guess what is interesting about the Lemba is that they have a similar story to the people of Lehi, but 100 years prior.  The DNA issue in the americas has led many Mormon scholars to take the position that the Nephites were an insignificant population genetically, and that DNA cannot be traced because of their minority status.  However, the case of the Lemba shows that semitic origins can be traced among a small minority population.  Even though they look strikingly similar to the Venda and Bantu tribes, they have a different DNA makeup than these other indigenous African tribes.

If the Lemba’s claim is true, the proof should be in their blood.  It’s now possible to trace the Lemba’s ancestry through their DNA, and that’s just what scientists in South Africa have done.  I’m going back to the Lemba’s current homeland to find out the truth behind this fascinating mystery.

…

That’s why I’ve come to Johannesburg.  The scientists here at the National Health Laboratory Services have screened in the genetic profiles of the Lemba, and their neighboring tribes, the Venda, and the Bantu.  They’ve come up with some revealing conclusions.

Dr Trefor Jenkins [lead geneticist in the study of the Lemba for the last 20 years from University of Witwatersrand], “I heard of the Lemba many years ago….I didn’t really have much interest in pursuing their actual identity until a friend, who had been studying the Lemba, had detected some Jewish influences in the music of the Lemba.”

Bernstein, “So their music actually differs from the people around them, and that brought you in to study the genetics.”

Jenkins, “Yes.

Bernstein, “So the genetic data doesn’t say that the Lemba are Jewish, as much as it says they have Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “Yes, that’s how we put it.  What we were saying was that there is a non-African contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba, which is not evident in the peoples amongst whom they live in that part of the world.”

Bernstein, “You mentioned non-African influences.  If someone didn’t have genetic data, or the testing available, how could you determine if one group is Jewish, or not?”

Jenkins, “I distrust relying on morphological features to categorize populations.”

Bernstein, “So if someone couldn’t say, ‘he looks Jewish, she looks Jewish, he’s not Jewish, she’s not Jewish’, that wouldn’t have any bearing on the issue of Semitic origins.”

Jenkins, “I don’t think so….”

Dr Jenkins believes that DNA always trumps appearances, and the Lemba’s claim to Jewish ancestry may indeed have some genetic support.  Not only is their DNA very different from their neighbors, but according to his colleague, Dr Himla Soodyall [Geneticist, University of Witwatersrand], it may have a non-African, even Jewish connection.

…

Soodyall , “this is the very interesting thing-that the South African Lemba have a particular y-chromosome pattern or lineage that’s common in people who identify as the Kohanim, or the Jewish priests.”

In the Jewish tradition, the Kohanim are part of the priestly caste.  Amazingly, scientists have isolated a strand of DNA that is strongly associated with the Kohanim.  It’s called the Cohen Modal Haplotype, and it’s almost exclusive to Jews who claim the priestly heritage-almost exclusive.  The Cohen Modal Haplotype has been found among the priestly caste of the Lemba.

Soodyall , “The observation that the Cohen pattern was commonest in that one particular group is something that begs exploration.”

This link supports the Lemba’s oral history and the archaeological clues we’ve seen, in the places they say they’ve lived.  But Himla is quick to point out the limitations of genetic science.

Soodyall, “Now in terms of whether the Lemba are Jewish-of course they have the Cohen Modal Haplotype-or not, is something that science cannot address.  Because cultural identity is a social construct.  No genetic data is going to tell you that are Jewish, or that are Hindu, or that you are Christian, or any religious denomination.”

Himla tells me that the presence of the Cohen Modal Haplotype can’t tell us anything about the Lemba religion.  But just as remarkably, it can tell us where their ancestors came from, and it’s not in Africa.

Soodyall, “There is this interesting genetic information showing us that some of the original founders did come from other parts of the world, other than Africa.  From our data, I would put my money on saying that it’s the Middle East.”

Himla is convinced that the ancestors did indeed come from the Middle East.

I remember that there is a theory claiming that the BoM took place in Africa.  Now I know that FARMS considered it laughable, but as I look at the map above, there do seem to be some significantly sized lakes and seas along the Lemba route.  The BoM also talks about the Lamanites were a “dark and loathsome people.”  Now, if the Lamanites had intermarried with an indigenous population like the Lemba did, then the “dark” part becomes a very interesting description for this people (though the “loathsome” part is obviously racially charged.)

Now I’m not claiming the Lemba are the Lamanites, but don’t you think that this opens up some possibilities for the Book of Mormon?  Perhaps we really need to consider some really radical settings for the BoM.  What do you think?

Book of Mormon geography is one of my favorite topics, and it’s been a while since I talked about it.  Wouldn’t it be cool to find some archaeological evidence?  There are over 100 theories concerning Book of Mormon geography.  Since they can’t all be correct, obviously, some scientists are digging in the wrong place.  Let’s review some of the theories again.

In 1991, John Sorensen of BYU, the “dean” of Book of Mormon geography, created a book called “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book“.  (It is hard to find because it has no ISBN #, but can be purchased at the BYU Bookstore as well as some bookstores specializing on obscure Mormon books.)  I reviewed the theories.  I grouped them into basic categories, and discovered a 7^th category when Last Lemming posted a comment at my blog about an African theory.  Here they are:

(1)   Internal Theories. These are maps which just read the BOM and ignore where they might have occurred, but try to figure out rough distances, and major landmarks that the true map must exhibit. This is a good starting point for “real-world” maps to compare themselves to.  Any scholar should probably start here first.

(2)   Hemispheric Models. Mormons originally thought that the Book of Mormon peoples covered the entire North and South America. Most serious scholars now doubt this, but many church members probably still believe this today.

(3)   Central America Models. The bulk of “mormon approved” scholars support this general theory. While there are disagreements about where the “narrow neck of land” exists, such as Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, etc, these theories can be lumped into this category.  This is the theory that is most accepted by Mormon Scholars.

(4)   South America Models. Joseph Smith is reported to have said that Lehi landed 30 degrees South of the equator, in what would be modern day Chile. There are several theories that try to confirm this, and most people who support this group of theories believe that most of South America was under water, and that the continent rose up during the major earthquakes mentioned in the BOM during Christ’s crucifixion in the Old World.

(5)   The Great Lakes Theories. This proposes that since the golden plates were found in NY, the BOM lands must be nearby, and proposes that the Great Lakes were the Sea East, West, etc.  This theory has recently received a boost from people like Rodney Meldrum, and is making some inroads into Mormon thought.

The book is now close to 20 years old.  Since it was published, a flood of new theories have been created.  The following 2 theories are some of the most radical.

(6) The African Theory by Embaye Melekin.  The link to this theory on my blog no longer works, but Michael Ash wrote a review of this theory in 2001.  Melekin claims that his book titled, “Manifestations mysteries revealed,” has proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon is an African book and about Africans. . . . My book will change the church and the belief of the Mormons drastically.” Well Melekin didn’t change Ash’s opinion, and I don’t give this theory much credence.

(7) The Malay Theory. This theory says it would have been much easier for Nephi to travel a 4000 mile journey to the Malay Peninsula than a 16000 mile journey in open seas to the Americas. The author notes better language similarities, better DNA evidence, and other evidences to support his ideas, while clearly noting that he is not sure how the plates got to NY.

One need only look Wikipedia to see the common problems with all the American theories.  (Important note-look at the top of the article-there are many messages at the top of the article stating that the findings in the entry are highly disputed, so use that information as you will.)  Here’s a brief listing of problems with theories 2-5.  Archaeological evidence has failed to produce many of the following animals and plants existed during the Book of Mormon period:

• Horses
• Elephants
• Cattle and cows
• Sheep
• Goats
• Swine
• Barley and wheat

Additionally, Native Americans were much more primitive than is mentioned in the Book of Mormon-there were no chariots, or even wheeled vehicles in the Americas, and iron was not used for weapons.  Iron ore has been discovered in Peru, but its purpose was primarily for body paint.  Here are some other problems:

• Chariots or wheeled vehicles
• Steel and iron
• Metal swords, which had “rusted”
• Cimiters
• System of exchange based on measures of precious metals
• Silk
• Knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages

DNA seems to be another problem.  I did a post last July on a book I read called “DNA and Tradition:  The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews“, by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman.  Jewish DNA has been a relatively important topic in the scientific community, and a gene has been discovered, called the Cohen gene which seems to date back to the time of Aaron and Moses.  This Cohen gene theoretically represents the Levite tribe, of which Moses and Aaron were a part of.  Medically, the Cohen gene has been linked to neurological problems.  In my talk with Ann (What’s the difference between Arabs and Persians?), she acknowledged that Jews do carry some unique genetic traits.

So, lest anyone think I’m advocating the position that the Book of Mormon is archaeologically unsound, let’s look at the Bible for a minute. I did a post which tries to show the good and bad news of Biblical Archaeology.  There is no evidence that Jews existed prior to about 700 BC.  That means that there is no archaeological evidence of Moses, Saul, Joseph, Adam, Eve, Job, Abraham, Noah, and everyone who pre-dates 700 BC.  Some scholars go so far as to claim that the Exodus never happened.  There is an inscription about David in the Tel Dan stele, which seems to indicate that a King David may have existed, but scholars are split as to the veracity of this claim.  There is even a lack of contemporary evidence that Christ existed, though the writings after his crucifixion certainly add a significant amount of credible evidence that Christ probably existed.  Either way, science will never be able to prove he was resurrected, which is a fundamental tenet of all Christianity.

So my point is that the Bible and the Book of Mormon’s primary value are in their religious and spiritual validity, not necessarily scientific validity.  Certainly the Bible has more archaeological evidence than the Book of Mormon, but there are many archaeological questions for both books.

Does lack of evidence prove these people did not exist?  No, we are only a discovery away from proving the skeptics wrong.  Can a spiritual person still be a scientist?  Yes, according to Maimonides, a rabbi who wrote 700 years ago.  A quote from DNA and Tradition:  The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews says,

“His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

So, what if the Book of Mormon is true, but like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, we’re “digging in the wrong place?”  I decided to look at one of the radically different geography theories-the Malay theory by Ralph Olsen.  I discovered it in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.  He even has his own section here.  The footnotes list a link to a Sunstone article he did.  (You must open the attachment with the free Adobe Reader.)

In the Sunstone article, he lists his mailing address, so I wrote him a letter.  Ralph Olsen is a retired chemistry professor at Montana State University, with research interests in plants, soils, and microbes.  I asked him why he picked Malay as a possible Book of Mormon location, and he cited several reasons:

(1)    The peninsula is North-south, unlike Sorenson’s east-west orientation

(2)    The problems with animals go away.  Elephants, sheep, horses, etc. all date to the proper time period

(3)    The civilization dates to the proper time period, and has had chariots, iron, silk, etc

(4)    There was a dark-skinned people pre-existing on the peninsula.  If they intermarried with the Lamanites, (while the Nephites did not intermarry) that would explain the “dark and loathsome” comment in the Book of Mormon

(5)    The oceanic travel makes more sense

(6) Alma 63: 5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an ^aexceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land ^bBountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the ^cnarrow neck which led into the land northward.

a.       Traditional Mormon scholars seem to support the idea that Hagoth travelled eastward and populated the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc),

b.      Scholarly consensus indicates that Native Americans came from Asia, hopped across the Pacific Islands (such as Hawaii, Tonga, etc), before arriving in the Americas.  Olsen’s theory seems to be backed up by more scientists

(7)    DNA evidence seems to be better.  I blogged previously about the 12 Tribes of Israel.  As we know from the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Lehi were from the tribe of Manasseh.  Unrelated to this theory, a Jewish documentary filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici has made the claim that the tribe of Manasseh may be located in the Malay Peninsula in his film “Quest for the Lost Tribes”, which I blogged about previously.

a.       While not endorsing the Malay Theory, Simon Southerton commented on my blog that “I’m not aware of any DNA evidence from South East Asia linking populations there with the Middle East. South East Asia has been heavily populated for tens of thousands of years, with large civilizations. It is possible that Jewish sailors colonized parts of Asia though.”

I know Southerton gets a lot of flak from FARMS and FAIR for his DNA studies.  I know Rodney Meldrum is making some claims that Cohen DNA has been found in the Americas.  However, Southerton says that Meldrum’s work is based on old genetic tests, and is no longer valid.  Southerton’s rebuttal is found here.

Unrelated to this theory, a Jewish documentary filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici has made the claim that the tribe of Manasseh may be located in the Malay Peninsula in his film “Quest for the Lost Tribes”, which I blogged about previously.  Jacobovici mentions that when Babylon invaded Israel and scattered them in 600 BC, that some of the tribes were taken across land to Malay.  This could seemingly explain how the Mulekites got there, and why the Nephites (who travelled by boat) couldn’t understand them.

There is also a legend in Malay stating that some shipwrecked Jewish people landed there, possibly indicating the Nephites landing there. As we know from the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Lehi were from the tribe of Manasseh.  Jacobovici states in his film that some of the local citizens in Malay claim to be from the Tribe of Manasseh.

Olsen has written a short book called “A More Promising Land of Promise”, which is available for purchase on his own website.  He also sent me a much longer, unpublished manuscript, which goes into further detail, than his published book.  He encourages people to critique his work, so if you have problems with his theories, be kind, but please express them.  My biggest problems with the theory are:

(1)    How did the plates get to New York?  Olsen admits that he doesn’t know-possibly a miracle?  But he also points out that Sorensen doesn’t adequately explain how the 200 lb plates moved from Guatemala 3000 miles north to NY without a wheeled vehicle.

(2)    If the Book of Mormon lands are in Asia, then Joseph’s account that the Book of Mormon contains a record of the inhabitants of the American continent, then Malay is clearly not.  Joseph Smith History 1:34 “[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

a.       Olsen’s argument emphasizes it differently, instead emphasizing “and the source from whence they sprang.” He says the Source is the Malay Peninsula, and that is how to overcome this apparent discrepancy. I can see his point, but I know that is not a traditional understanding of that scripture, and I’m not sure I buy it.

So, what do you think?  Do you have any other major problems with the theory?  Is there anything you like about the theory?

In the introduction to the book, there are several interesting quotes, and he quotes from a book written by Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204 ) called Guide for the Perplexed, which examines the issues of being a religious scientist.

Of course I find some interesting parallels between this jew, looking of the lost tribes, and mormons, looking for the Lamanites.  And it seems my science vs religion, and DNA posts are getting the most comments lately, so I thought I’d tie these topics together.

Here are some interesting quotes from the book.

“Albert Einstein is quoted as having stated that if you cannot explain something to your grandmother, then you probably don’t really understand it….”

“Although writing more than 700 years ago, [Rabbi Moses] Nachmanides’ message is even more clear and relevant today.  His writings directed the person of faith to realize that there is much more hidden than revealed, both in the traditional Biblical writings and also in the natural world.  Our challenge is to continually study and investigate both realms, with the realization that apparent conflicts are merely artifacts of temporary incomplete understanding in one or both realms.  This avoidance of intellectual pride, allows the person of traditional religious faith to work comfortably within the framework of rigorous scientific hypothesis and empiricism.  This is also in keeping with the rationalist approach in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.”

I plan future topics on Rabbi Kleiman’s DNA analysis of the Cohen gene, and will note that as I quickly skimmed through the book, he does mention “Mormans” claims to the tribe of Manasseh in the Book of Mormon.  As I just started the book, I’m not sure if his analysis is positive, negative, or neutral, but I look forward to reading chapter 5, which more fully addresses this topic.

I’ll stop here for now, and ask for opinions regarding “intellectual pride.” Anybody agree/disagree with any of these rabbis?

What is interesting to me about these lost tribes is the connection to the Book of Mormon. The BOM claims that the Nephites were descendants to the Tribe of Manasseh. So I was interested to see what insights the movie might have on this tribe in particular.

First of all, we often refer to the 12 tribes of Israel, but there’s some discrepancy in numbering them. Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons: Dan, Naphtali, Issachar, Zebulon, Gad, Reuben, Levi, Joseph, Benjamin, Judah, Asher, Simeon. Due to idolatry, sometimes Dan is excluded from this list, and Levi did not receive land, but rather the priesthood, so this tribe is sometimes excluded from the list of the lost tribes. Joseph, as favorite son, gets both of his sons, Ephraim, and Manasseh included.

So, the Jews today are descendants of Judah. Joseph Smith claims that the American Indians are descendants of Manasseh (Joseph), so that explains how two of the tribes are not lost any more. The other 10 (or 12 tribes, depending on how you count them) were scattered by an invasion of the Assyrians in 700 BC. There is little archaeological evidence of these 10 tribes after 500 BC, so little is known about them. But there are prophecies in the Old Testament (Isaiah, Ezekiel) that these lost tribes would return to their promised land.

In the documentary, Jacobovici makes a case that he may have found large groups of people representing these lost tribes. A group in Ethiopia claims to be descendants of Dan. In the 1980′s, the chief rabbi became convinced that these Ethiopians were truly of the tribe of Dan. In the Civil War in 1991, the Israeli government airlifted this group, who practiced many Jewish customs, out of the war zone, and repatriated them in Israel, based specifically on their being a lost tribe of Israel.

1.5 million people, claiming to be descendants from the Tribe of Manasseh (Bnei Manashe) live on the India/Burma border. Many rabbis are becoming convinced that these people may be correct, and many are trying to migrate to Israel. Briefly, here are some others :

• Naphtali – China and Iran
• Zebulon – Bombay, India
• Issachar – Uzbekistan
• Tribes of Gad, Ephraim, Reuben,Simeon – can be found among the Pashtun (Pathans) tribes of Afghanistan
• Asher – Tunisia

Obviously, some of these groups have converted to Christianity, and Islam. They represent various races, and don’t look like the typical image of a Jew. Most of these obscure groups have unknown origins. Many of the groups have maintained some of their old Jewish traditions. For example, the Pashtuns seem to have combined their Islam and Jewish beliefs, some still killing a Passover lamb, even though this is not an Islamic custom, and many of these tribes have Israeli sounding names, even though they are Muslim.

There is not much DNA evidence in this film. However, there is another film, which I will detail in a future post, dealing with the Lemba tribe in South Africa. They claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel, but make no specific tribal claims. They are kosher, wear Jewish clothing, and a DNA test was done on an Episode of Digging for the Truth, which seems to indicate that they have some semitic DNA. Perhaps they descended from the Ethiopian group, perhaps another way.

While I agree that these claims are highly speculative, there are some interesting claims. The Bnei Manashe (of Burma) are part of the National Geographic Genome Project, and in 2010, we will find out if there claims can be backed up by science that they are truly Semitic people.

What do you make of these claims about the lost tribes becoming found? What are the implications for the Book of Mormon?

First of all, why do we care about the 10 tribes? None of them appeared to have any redeeming value. Israel (Jacob) had 10 juvenile delinquent sons, who tried to kill their own brother Joseph. One of these sons slept with someone he thought was a prostitute, who turned out to be his sister. Other sons slaughtered an entire group of people who had just been circumcised.

As time moved on, we learn the 12 tribes of Israel split into a northern and southern kingdom. The northern kingdom pretty much was wicked the whole time, while the southern kingdoms of Judah and Benjamin were wicked most of the time, but had more periods of obeying God.

I just don’t understand why these tribes are supposed to be held in esteem, because it really doesn’t appear to me that they were ever worthy of the blessings of the Lord. Everything they do in the Bible appears to show that they were generally wicked. I know that God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that they would have posterity without number, but if the children were so wicked, do they merit more consideration than any other group of people?

So the 3 questions I would like answers to are these:

(1) Why does anyone care about the lost 10 tribes?
(2) Why is this restoration of the lost 10 tribes even mentioned in the 10th article of faith?
(3) If God is no respecter of persons, do the lost 10 (or 12) tribes merit more consideration than any other group of people?

I’d love to hear what anybody has to say. These are sincere questions, are are not intended to rile anybody up, though I know they may sound heretical, hence the name of this blog.