The Know

The Book of Mormon mentions a son of King Zedekiah named Mulek who, unlike the other children of Zedekiah, was not killed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem was destroyed.1 Mulek was then able to reach the Americas, where his people would eventually unite with Mosiah and the Nephites (Omni 1:13–19). Unlike with Lehi’s journey or the voyage of the Jaredites, the Book of Mormon gives no direct account of how Mulek and those with him got to the New World (1 Nephi 1–18; Ether 1–6). However, a few key details can be gleaned regarding Mulek’s journey to the Americas.

First, the prophet Amaleki records in the book of Omni that the Mulekites “came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon” (Omni 1:15). This would place the group’s exodus from the land of Jerusalem after Lehi had already left, most likely in close proximity to the destruction of Jerusalem itself in 586 BC. Furthermore, this party “journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:16). Mulek did not travel alone, and he may have been under royal protection of some official guardian. As Mosiah 25:2 mentions, others “came with him into the wilderness” when they fled Jerusalem.

The land they arrived at was north of the landing site of Lehi: Helaman 6:10 records that “the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south.” While the Book of Mormon does not explicitly state whether the Mulekites landed on the east or west coast, the book of Alma does record that the city of Mulek was “on the east borders by the seashore” (Alma 51:26). If the Mulekites used the same naming conventions as the Nephites, it is possible that this city was named after Mulek shortly after the Mulekites arrived in the New World (see Alma 8:7).2 If the Mulekites had landed on the east coast, they would have crossed the Atlantic Ocean on their journey.3

Scholars such as John L. Sorenson and Jeffrey R. Chadwick have argued that based on the evidence from the Bible, Mulek would have been (at oldest) fifteen or sixteen years old, and he could have been much younger.4 The most viable way to keep Mulek safe would have been to seek refuge in Egypt, just as other Israelites were doing at that time, including some of Zedekiah’s daughters (see Jeremiah 43:1–6).5 It is likely that Mulek was not in Jerusalem at the time it was destroyed, either acting as an envoy for his father or having previously been led out of the city in hopes of preserving an heir to the throne.6

Either from an Egyptian port or one further west such as Carthage (modern-day Tunisia), Mulek or his guardians could have hired, for example, a Phoenician, Egyptian, or Greek vessel to take him farther away from Babylonian influence.7 Most scholars believe that that ship would naturally have sailed west, through the Mediterranean, past the Straits of Gibraltar, and into the Atlantic Ocean.8 As Sorenson summarized, “The expertise of Mediterranean mariners was oriented westward, not eastward into the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In my view, that they traveled via the Atlantic is certain.”9 It remains unclear whether this vessel would have intended to sail to the New World or, perhaps by divine providence, it was blown off course and arrived in the New World.

The Book of Mormon also contains some possible evidence to support Phoenician contact with the Mulekites. For example, the River Sidon was likely named after the Phoenician port of the same name (Alma 2:15). This river was specifically stated to run by the land of Zarahemla, which might indicate that the Mulekites gave the river its name. In that case, the name of one of the most prominent Phoenician ports would be fitting for the Mulekites’ main watercourse.10 On the other hand, the name Sidon may have been on the plates of brass (see Genesis 10:19; Judges 18:28). It has also been noted that Siron, mentioned in Alma 39:3, is a Phoenician name for Mount Hermon (Deuteronomy 3:9), and it is also possible that Sidom (the name for the land that lay alongside the river Sidon), mentioned in Alma 15:1, has a related etymology.11

Additionally, certain names of people and places in the Book of Mormon appear to have Greek etymologies, including Archaentus, Antipas, Timothy, Lachoneus, and Angola.12 All of these names appear only after the Nephites initially encountered the Mulekites and their cultures had time to assimilate. The presence of Greek names in the Book of Mormon, like the Phoenician land names, could have been introduced by the crew of the ship that brought Mulek to the New World.13

The Phoenician crew, as John L. Sorenson has observed, “would likely have been a heterogeneous, mixed-Mediterranean lot, for Phoenician often did not signify an ethnically uniform group.”14 The same can be said of Egyptian and Greek (Hellenic) crews that typically hailed from a variety of lands and islands.15 This diversity could explain not only the presence of Greek and Phoenician names in the Nephite world but also another aspect about the Book of Mormon. It is recorded that when Mosiah and his people initially met the people of Zarahemla, the Mulekites’ “language had become corrupted” after about 380 years, they having brought no records with them (Omni 1:17). Sorenson wrote, “Based on what historical linguists know about language change, it is highly unlikely that if Hebrew had been the exclusive tongue of Mulek’s party, their idiom would have changed in three hundred years so as to be unintelligible to Mosiah.”16 If they were a multilingual group, especially with no written records, their language could have been corrupted much faster as elements of different languages were mixed together.17

This could also explain why Amaleki noted that the Mulekites “denied the being of their Creator” when Mosiah initially found them as well (Omni 1:17). Much of their religious confusion could have been brought about if Mulek came to the New World by way of mixed crew. If Israelites were not the only ones on the ship, it could have led to a confusion and amalgamation of religious practices over the years, not only to fit the entire crew’s needs but also to changing basic beliefs and breaking some of the Lord’s commandments in the process.

Furthermore, archeological evidence demonstrates that at the time Mulek would have left Jerusalem for the New World, the Phoenicians and Greeks were involved in substantial maritime trade and were noted for their ability to navigate the seas. Biblical scholar William G. Dever has noted, “By the seventh century [BC], their maritime trade was at its peak, extending to Egypt, North Africa, Greece and the Aegean, and as far away as Spain.”18 Phoenician merchants also had trade and communication with Israel, as attested by a bullae detailing “a Phoenician ship with elevated prow and stern, mast, oars, and rudder” dating to the ninth to eight centuries BC that was found in Jerusalem.19

According to Herodotus, Phoenician sailors were commissioned by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II to circumnavigate Africa around 600 BC.20 The historicity of this event is sometimes doubted, but one commentator has noted that “Necho’s interests in the Red Sea and the southern regions are … well attested.” Furthermore, Herodotus includes one detail about the sun’s position for the sailors at one part of their journey that he finds unbelievable, but this may actually reflect eyewitness knowledge of the skies that would be gained by sailing through the southern hemisphere.21

In 2008, an English ex-naval officer named Philip Beale sought to recreate this alleged voyage mentioned by Herodotus, and so he constructed a replica of a Phoenician trading ship of 600 BC. Beale’s ship, which he called the Phoenicia, was carefully designed based on an underwater wreck of an ancient Phoenician merchant ship (Jules-Vern VII) found in the harbor of Marseille, France, dated to about 700 BC. Efforts were taken to make the ship as authentic as possible while adding only minimal modern technological necessities. With a crew of volunteers from around the world, Beale was able to successfully circumnavigate Africa in two years and two months.22 During this voyage, Beale’s ship went much farther into the Atlantic than initially planned, coming within a few hundred miles of the coasts of several Caribbean Islands.

This inspired Beale to make a second voyage, attempting to cross the Atlantic in 2019. With another volunteer crew, Beale sailed the Phoenicia from Tunisia (the site of the ancient city Carthage) west through the Straits of Gibraltar to the Canary Island port at Tenerife (the launch site of Columbus’s voyage in 1492). From there, he crossed the Atlantic Ocean, arriving in the Dominican Republic, in the Caribbean Sea. Then, with motorized assistance, he landed in Miami, Florida, in February of 2020.23 These two journeys demonstrate that Phoenician and other ancient ships were capable of transoceanic travel and of reaching the Americas as early as 600 BC, if not long before.24

Linguistic evidence also supports contact between Phoenicians and the Americas. In recent decades, the linguist Brian D. Stubbs has observed many similarities between some American languages and those of the Old World. Stubbs is an established authority on the Uto-Aztecan language family, which includes around thirty languages spoken primarily in western Mexico and the southwestern United States. He has found that these languages appear to have similarities to Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Egyptian, and even Phoenician.25

The Why

According to the prophet Lehi, the Americas were “a land of promise, a land which is choice.” Furthermore, “the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.” Lehi went on to prophesy that “there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord” (2 Nephi 1:5–6). This same language would be employed by Amaleki as he related the Mulekites’ arrival in the Americas, stating that they “were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters” (Omni 1:16). Thus, to the Nephite audience, the Mulekites’ presence in the New World was effected by the will of God, just as “our father, Lehi, was brought out of Jerusalem by the hand of God” (Alma 9:9, see also Mosiah 2:4).26

Understanding how the Mulekites arrived in the New World can provide additional perspectives on how the Lord can fulfill His promises in different ways. When the Lord led the Nephites and the Jaredites to the Americas, He instructed them to build their own ships or barges and provided means of guiding them to the New World. For the Mulekites, it is likely that the Lord could have chosen an already-established nautical culture who were skilled enough to make the journey. It is also possible that the Lord could have purposely driven this ship into uncharted waters to ensure they would reach the New World, just as He led the Jaredites through the winds and waves.

While we need not know all the Lord’s reasons and purposes in bringing the Mulekites to the New World, it is possible He did so to provide a confirming witness that Jerusalem had been destroyed as Lehi had prophesied. While the destruction of Jerusalem was confirmed in a vision to Lehi after arriving in the New World, this remained a matter of faith for Lehi’s children, who would have been unable to return to Jerusalem to confirm their father’s vison (see 2 Nephi 1:4). Notwithstanding, the meeting of the two groups occurred some 350 years after Lehi’s landing, and the presence of the Mulekites could have served in part to reward the faith of the Nephites, as they could bear witness with certainty that Jerusalem had been destroyed just as Lehi had foretold.

Indeed, the Mulekites appear to have served just such a purpose in Nephite history. As Nephi son of Helaman spoke to a wicked Nephite audience, he used the Mulekites as evidence that the words of the prophets would be fulfilled: “And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem?” (Helaman 8:21).

With this confirmation, the Nephites could have increased faith in other prophecies—including Samuel the Lamanite’s profound proclamations concerning the coming of Jesus Christ—knowing that they, too, would soon be fulfilled.

This KnoWhy was produced in cooperation with Boyd Tuttle, researcher with the FIRM Foundation and crew member of the Phoenicia Expedition in 2019.

• 1. See Helaman 8:21; 2 Kings 25:7; Jeremiah 39:6, 52:10. It is also possible that a seal belonging to Mulek has been found in the Old World. See Scripture Central, “Has An Artifact That Relates to the Book of Mormon Been Found? (Mosiah 25:2),” KnoWhy 103 (May 19, 2016); Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 72–83, 117–18.
• 2. It is also worth noting that Ether 9:3 puts the location of the Jaredite destruction near the eastern seashore. The Mulekites encountered Coriantumr, the last Jaredite survivor, which would imply (but not necessarily require) an eastern locale for Mulekite civilization.
• 3. For a more complete discussion of the eastern landing site of the Mulekites, see John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Mulekites,’” BYU Studies 30, no. 3 (1990): 10.
• 4. The Book of Mormon gives no indication of Mulek’s age or where he fit into the birth order of Zedekiah’s sons, and there is no consensus among Book of Mormon scholars. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 8, notes, “If Mulek was Zedekiah’s eldest son, he could have been as old as fifteen at the time Jerusalem fell and as a prince may have had his own house, wherein there could have been a dungeon (Jer. 37:15–16 mentions one in a private house). On the other hand, we do not know that Mulek was more than an infant. The younger he was, the greater the likelihood that he could have escaped the notice of the Babylonians and subsequent slaughter at their hands.” However, Chadwick, “Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?,” 81, notes that “it would have been practically impossible for the king’s daughters or any other Judeans to have secreted an infant Mulek from the custody of Nebuzaradan’s security agents. But if an infant Mulek would not likely have gone undetected by the Babylonians, a 15- or 16-year-old Mulek would have been even less likely to escape capture—unless he was not in Judah at the time Jerusalem fell.” Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 2: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University, 1988–1990 (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies [FARMS]; Covenant Communications, 2004), 5, also proposed, “When they [the Mulekites] came over, he was a child about ten or eleven. He may have been older.” An older age would more easily account for the seal that potentially belonged to Mulek, which would imply court service of some capacity. For discussions relating to seals like the seal of Mulek being used principally by court officials or administrators (including princes), see Nili Sacher Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah (Hebrew Union College Press, 2000), 52.
• 5. See Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 9–10; Chadwick, “Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?,” 81–82.
• 6. Chadwick, “Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?,” 82, notes Mulek may have been in Egypt “either to bear messages to Egypt and help coordinate the war or to secure his safety as heir to the throne of Judah, or both.”
• 7. As Hugh Nibley has pointed out, the Egyptians were trying to regain their former “supremacy of sea trade, [having] their huge seagoing ships manned exclusively by Syrian and Phoenician crews.” Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd ed. (Deseret Book; FARMS, 1988), 88.
• 8. See Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 9–10; Ross T. Christensen and Claudia R. Veteto, “The Phoenicians and the Ancient Civilizations of America,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the S.E.H.A. 111 (January 13, 1969): 3; “Possible Routes Suggested for Mulek’s Voyage,” Ensign, September 1973.
• 9. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 10.
• 10. See Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 9; Christensen and Veteto, “Phoenicians and the Ancient Civilizations,” 3.
• 11. Stephen D. Ricks, Paul Y. Hoskisson, Robert F. Smith, and John Gee, Dictionary of Proper Names and Foreign Words in the Book of Mormon (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2022), s.vv. “Sidon,” “Siron,” “Sidom.” Hugh Nibley also proposed that Lehi would have been opposed to Tyre for their alliance with Egypt and, by extension, Judah against Babylon, which may have also influenced this name’s appearance in the Book of Mormon. Tyre was also destroyed by the Babylonians shortly after Lehi left Jerusalem, which could explain why Sidonian names rather than Tyrian names are present in the Book of Mormon after Mulek’s exodus on what was most likely a Sidonian ship. Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 88–89.
• 12. See Moroni 9:2; Alma 47:7; 3 Nephi 1:1; 19:4; Mormon 2:4; Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names, s.vv. “Archeantus,” “Timothy,” “Lachoneus,” “Angola.” For an additional discussion of the Greek names in the Book of Mormon, see Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 289–290.
• 13. The name Jonas (the Greek variant of the Hebrew Jonah) also appears in the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 19:4. It is unclear whether the Greek form was used in the original Nephite record or was introduced during Joseph’s translation. Alternatively, it could be derived from another Hebrew etymology. See Ricks et al., Dictionary of Proper Names, s.v. “Jonas.”
• 14. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’”10.
• 15. Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 88.
• 16. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 11.
• 17. Alternatively, Christensen and Veteto, “Phoenicians and the Ancient Civilizations,” 3, propose the Mulekites may have only spoken Phoenician—a language related to Hebrew, meaning that Mosiah could have merely assumed their language had been corrupted. However, should there have been a wider multinational crew as Sorenson proposes, even this language would be heavily adapted by the time Mosiah and the Nephites met with the people of Zarahemla.
• 18. William G. Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah (SBL Press, 2017), 584.
• 19. Ronny Reich, Eli Shukron, and Omri Lemau, “The Iron Age II Finds from the Rock-Cut ‘Pool’ near the Spring in Jerusalem: A Preliminary Report,” in Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 BCE), 2 vols, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (T&T Clark, 2008), 1:140.
• 20. Herodotus, Histories 4.42.2.
• 21. David Asheri, Alan Lloyd, and Aldo Corcella, A Commentary on Herodutus Books I–IV, ed. Oswyn Murray and Alfonso Moreno (Oxford University Press, 2007), 611–612.
• 22. The details of this trip are recorded in Philip Beale and Sarah Taylor, Sailing Close to the Wind: An Epic Voyage Recreating the First Circumnavigation of Africa by the Phoenicians in 600 BC (Lulworth Press, 2012).
• 23. The details of this journey are recorded in Philip Beale, Atlantic BC: An Epic Recreation of a Phoenician Voyage 2000 Years Before Columbus (Lulworth Cove Press, 2021). After successfully crossing the Atlantic, Beale does record that it was necessary to use a motorized engine to sail from the Dominican Republic to Florida. See Beale, Atlantic BC, 203–206.
• 24. For example, Minoan ships are known to have sailed from the island of Crete to many parts of the eastern Mediterranean, and Greek ships, as is now known, sailed from Akrotiri on the island of Santorini also to eastern parts of the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age, before 1177 BC. Currently, the Phoenicia is on display in Montrose, Iowa, and stands as evidence that transoceanic travel was possible in 600 BC. It is also worth noting that Latter-day Saints, including Warren Aston, Boyd Tuttle, and Doug Petty, have been involved with both voyages of the Phoenicia.
• 25. For the Phoenician influences specifically, see Brian D. Stubbs, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan, 2nd ed. (Grover Publications, 2023), 62–68; Brain D. Stubbs, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now, 2nd ed. (Four Corners Digital Design, 2020), 80–85. For a discussion and summary of his overall findings, see also Scripture Central, “What Do We Know About Nephite Language? (Mormon 9:32–34),” KnoWhy 583 (November 3, 2020).
• 26. This can be one of many factors when trying to determine the location of Book of Mormon events. However, for more information regarding what the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint prophets have taught regarding this topic, see Scripture Central, “Where Is the Land of Promise? (2 Nephi 1:5),” KnoWhy 497 (January 8, 2019); Scripture Central, “What Counsel Have Church Leaders Given About the Study of Book of Mormon Geography? (3 Nephi 26:9),” KnoWhy 739 (July 4, 2024).