Defending Internal Book of Mormon Evidence: The Lesson of Proto-Indo-European

Critics of the Book of Mormon often deride it for its apparent lack of archaeological corroboration.  Indeed, most of the evidence that bears on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is “internal,” meaning evidence derived from the text of the book itself.  Those given to rejecting an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon often denigrate the value of internal evidence, perhaps considering anything not in the purview of Indiana Jones to not be “real” evidence.  For some, it seems, physical remains are all that counts.

As someone whose interests are primarily linguistic, and as someone who loves and believes in the Book of Mormon, I find this intellectually and spiritually disingenuous.  Frankly, ignoring the importance of linguistic evidence in a study is unscientific. 

Consider the study of the Indo-European language family, and its prehistoric origins among groups of people who spoke a language that we call Proto-Indo-European. 

For those not familiar with this, here’s an introduction: European languages often have obvious cognates with each other.  For example, English and Spanish share many word roots that point to common influences; the Spanish word “pensar” means “to think,” and the English word “pensive” means “in a thoughtful mood.”

Going back through history, we see that many languages ranging from Western Europe even to India have such roots in common.  Here’s a fairly simple “family tree” of the Indo-European languages from Rutgers University, showing the relationships between tongues as seemingly-unrelated as Italian and Polish, Welsh and Sanskrit; you can see English evolving out of German.  Bet you didn’t know we had so many cousins!

(Old English, the language of Beowulf, sounds more like German than English to our ears.  Spanish cognates come from Latin’s later influence on English, mostly starting with the French invasion of England in 1066.  These two heavy influences are one reason why English has so many synonyms, such as the Germanic “handbook” and the Latinate “manual.”)

Analyzing enough languages far enough back in history, we find some very diverse early languages with common material.  This suggests that there were related tribes of early peoples who spoke a parent language that gave us many of the modern world’s languages. 

Here’s what this has to do with Book of Mormon evidence: it’s by linguistic analysis that we learn about Proto-Indo-Europeans.  For instance, we can tell that they were familiar with cold climates, because multiple ancient languages in this family have common root words that mean “snow.” 

But there’s very little archaeological evidence for their existence.  In fact, the earliest evidence for Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the bulk of what we know today, comes from the language material they left us in later languages.  It’s only been since the 1950’s that the scant, new physical evidence from proposed sites for these peoples has been able to bear on the study at all. 

We don’t have a lot of artifacts or positive identification for sites where Proto-Indo-Europeans lived.  They didn’t even have writing, so our knowledge of their language is only based on reconstruction from second hand material.  Yet their existence is universally acknowledged, and has been for centuries, and that consensus is on the strength of linguistic evidence. 

Someone wanting to discount the veracity of the Book of Mormon because most of what we know about its origin is textual rather than archaeological should reconsider their critical criteria. 

Textual, linguistic evidence is real.  It’s scientific.  It counts.

3 comments on “Defending Internal Book of Mormon Evidence: The Lesson of Proto-Indo-European

  1. Just a little correction, there. In AD 1066, it was Normen who started the campaign against the Britons (largely Saxons, actually), not French.

    Those Normen were descendants of Vikings, who had settled in Normandy, and gave the name to Normandy, actually. So in Britain for a while, it was Vikings attacking from two sides. Normen from the south, and Norwegians aided by Scots from the North.

    The Normen very effectively hijacked all valuable land, and William was pronounced the King of England and their continental areas. They also expanded south insomuch as they became a threat to French kingdom, such as it was at the time. Thence, the longstanding competition of English and French kings over what is now called northern and northwestern France. Marriages were arranged to combine the ruling families, but the plans didn’t seem to work out.

    Anywho, I think it interesting, that the Norman conquest was actually another Viking conquest, only more permanent this time.

    That also influenced the language that now is called English so that the Normen’s mixture of old Scandinavian and northern French dialects overtook the Saxon language, not to mention the Celts.

    Both linguistics and genetic studies have shown that people have moved around a lot between the Urals and the Atlantic. The Goth kingdom is one that got run over, but we’re not exactly sure by whom. The Gothic language is preserved in one document, Wulfila’s translation of the Bible.

    So, anyway, the conquering hasn’t always been “military”. It may have been economical or other things that influence who will preserve their histories. The histories of destroyed kingdoms have largely been destroyed, so the histories we have are written by the winners, and thus the winners are glorified, the losers demonised. Not always, but often.

    Anyways, I appreciate the idea that Vikings who were probably unable to settle in Britain, settled in the Channel coast on the Continent, and grew in strength and numbers, and then were able to exploit the desperate situation that Aethelred was in, with a massive attack in the North, which almost did his army in, and then when he lost in Hastings, the army was not at its strongest.

    Kindof like the idea that if the English and French (with Americans) had attacked Germany from the west, when Hitler was blitzkrieging through Poland, they might have changed history, no? Whe shall never know, shall we?

    Sorry, a bit rambling again…

  2. Ha! OK, yes, you have a point at the beginning, and the rest of the trivia is, of course, welcome and fascinating, but isn’t it obvious that I’m generalizing here? Who wants to be the guy who hears a broad statement, pushes his Scotch-taped glasses back up to the bridge of his nose, sticks his forefinger in the air to demand attention, and begins lecturing, “Um, actually…“? C’mon, for all practical purposes, the popular use of “Norman” has become nearly synonymous with French, anyway. Your “correction” here is like saying, “He’s not an American, he’s a Californian.”

    But I mean that to be a friendly chide, not a harsh rebuke. The details are a good addition. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s