History:Nephi’s unwonted specificity here presents archaeological and zoological problems, since the “cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse” have not yet been proven to have existed in the New World before European contact and during the times of the Book of Mormon (though Pleistocene horses are known). The mention of these animals is therefore anachronistic. That is, a purportedly historical text mentions something that does not exist at the time it was purportedly written. This is typically one of the ways in which forgeries are discovered. Is that what we have in the Book of Mormon? Clearly I do not believe so, but it is an important question. There is currently no conclusive answer to the issue of anomalous animals and plants in the Book of Mormon. The best course at present is to review the essential information.
The first and perhaps most important caution is that we may be wise to withhold judgment on the presence of anomalous fauna and flora. Sorenson notes, “In 1982, for example, apparent domesticated barley was reported found in Arizona, the first pre-Columbian occurrence in the western hemisphere.” History should teach us to be cautious about negative information, as the authenticated discovery of a single previously unknown animal or plant requires the previous scholarly wisdom to be revised. However, it seems improbable that all of the anomalous animals listed in the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future.
A more important place to look for answers is the English text of the Book of Mormon. It is the result of a translation, not the language that was on the plates. The reality of our text is that it is a layer of information that lies on top of the original layer of text expressed in whatever “Egyptian” or “reformed Egyptian” might be. The very fact that it is a translation rather than the original opens an important arena in which anachronisms might exist in the translation without indicating problems with the original text. That is, the anachronism may exist in the translation, but not in the original. In the discussion of Nephi’s “steel” bow, I examined the “steel” bows mentioned in the King James Version of 2 Samuel 22:35, Psalm 18:34, and Job 20:24. (See the commentary accompanying 1 Nephi 16:18.) In each of these cases, the translation should have been “bronze.” The presence of the word “steel” is anachronistic, but not condemnatory. It is a translation issue, not a problem with the underlying text. Similarly, any mention of candles in the King James Version of the Bible is a translation anachronism as the source of light during biblical times was an oil lamp.
In the case of the Bible, the existence of texts in the original language allows scholars to check seeming anachronisms that appear in the translations. The Book of Mormon does not provide that luxury, but that does not mean that the Book of Mormon’s English text would be any less susceptible to translation issues than the King James Version of the Bible.
The idea that these anomalous fauna (v. 25) and flora (Mosiah 9:9) might be attributed to translation error follows well-known linguistic tendencies when people of one culture/geography encounter a completely different location. When faced with unfamiliar animals for which there is no name in their own language, how do human beings label these new animals? Typically they assign the new animal to a category that already exists in their own language, whether there is a precise match or not. When Father Diego de Landa (1529–1579) encountered the small brocket deer, he called it a “kind of little wild goat.” Similarly, Sorenson notes: “The Delaware Indians named the cow after the deer, and the Miami tribe labeled sheep, when they first saw them, ‘looks-like-a-cow.’” Some of the mislabelings have become the commonplace name for the animal. We know what we mean by hippopotamus, but typically do not understand that it literally means “river horse” in Latin.
The American “buffalo” is actually a bison, but is best known by its mislabel. Sometimes the native name is adopted. “Coyote” is from the Nahuatl (Aztec language) “coyotl,” and “ocelot” comes from the Nahuatl “ocelotl.” In any case, the encounter with completely new animals (and plants) creates a linguistic crisis. One solution has typically been to adapt an old designation to the new animal, even when there is no biological connection. The connection is based on some perceived similarity, even though those with a knowledge of both animals might not see it.
The Book of Mormon provides two possible occasions for such a mislabeling. The first is when the Lehites must describe the animals they find in the New World. In this case, Joseph Smith would be accurately translating a label applied by the Nephites. Sorenson favors this solution. The other possibility is that Joseph Smith is mislabeling unknown animals during the translation process according to his cultural expectations, regardless of the technical meaning of the terms on the plates. I favor this second approach.
Geography: Nephi mentions “ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.” While modern Guatemala does not have a major mining industry for these metals, they are present and sporadically mined. Silver mines were exploited in the Spanish colonial period, and are still productive in very small quantities. It is at least interesting that in the catalogue of metals, Nephi lists both gold and copper, which form the alloy tumbaga, the suggested material of which Nephi’s plates were composed. It is probably not coincidental that the very next verse (not separated by a chapter break in the 1830 edition) begins to speak of Nephi creating the plates. (See commentary accompanying 1 Nephi 19:1.)
Text: There is no chapter break at this point in the 1830 edition.