Challenging the Claim: Are Book of Mormon Naming Patterns Evidence of Ancient Origin?

    In his chapter “Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon,” published in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (affiliate link), Donald W. Parry suggests that the Book of Mormon reflects ancient Semitic origins through the way names are used in the text. He highlights three main points: the absence of surnames, the lack of names beginning with the letter F, and the complete avoidance of the letters q, x, and w in all 337 proper names in the Book of Mormon. He argues that these features mirror patterns found in the Bible and that it would be unlikely for Joseph Smith to have replicated them by chance.

    This claim sounds convincing on the surface, but it falls apart under closer examination. These patterns are better explained as a result of Joseph Smith’s efforts to match the tone, structure, and language of the King James Bible. 

    The Bible served as Joseph Smith’s template. The King James Version, which was widely used in his time, contains no surnames. This is because ancient Hebrew culture did not use surnames the way modern societies do. Instead, people were identified by patronymics (e.g., “son of X”), places of origin, or tribal affiliation. The Book of Mormon reflects this style because it was written to sound like scripture. Joseph Smith would have naturally followed the patterns he was familiar with when crafting names. Simply avoiding the use of surnames would have been pretty easy for Smith to remember.

    Parry points out that names in the Book of Mormon avoids the letters q, x, and w and do not start with F. He treats this as unlikely if Joseph Smith had invented the names on his own. But this argument relies on the assumption that Joseph created names without any guidance. In reality, he was drawing heavily from the King James Bible, which itself contains very few names with those letters. The reason for this is linguistic. Hebrew, the source language of much of the Old Testament, has a different phonetic system than English. Letters like q, x, and w don’t have common equivalents in ancient Hebrew or Greek. The King James translators worked within those language limits, and Joseph Smith imitated that style when producing Book of Mormon names.

       Its pretty clear that many Book of Mormon names resemble biblical names with slight changes. Names like Amaleki, Alma, and Moroni mimic familiar scriptural sounds. Others, like Zemnarihah or Cumenihah, seem designed to sound biblical even if they don’t resemble any known names from ancient Hebrew or Egyptian sources. (Which makes me wonder why critics are so determined to insist that all Book of Mormon names follow Hebrew conventions in the first place). Critics like Earl Wunderli in An Imperfect Book (affiliate link), and Grant Palmer in  An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (affiliate link), have noted that these names are often constructed using common biblical syllables and patterns.

 

    Parry’s argument relies on narrow and selective criteria. It assumes that Joseph Smith would have accidentally introduced modern naming conventions or unusual letter patterns. But Joseph wasn’t writing in a vacuum. He was deliberately crafting a text that sounded ancient. In doing so, he followed the patterns found in the only scripture he knew, the King James Bible.

    The lack of surnames and specific letters in Book of Mormon names does not prove the text is ancient. It shows that Joseph Smith modeled his writing after the King James Bible. This was likely a conscious choice, not an accidental success. Rather than being evidence of ancient authenticity, the naming patterns are better understood as stylistic imitation. Parry’s claim is based on a pattern that disappears once we recognize the influence of the Bible on the Book of Mormon’s language and form.