Evidence #466 | October 9, 2024
Book of Mormon Evidence: Mulek's Transoceanic Voyage
Post contributed by
Scripture Central
Abstract
Several lines of evidence suggest that Mulek and his party may have reached the Americas by sailing across the Atlantic aboard a Phoenician ship.The Book of Mormon mentions a son of King Zedekiah named Mulek who, unlike Zedekiah’s other sons, was not killed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem was destroyed.1 Mulek then journeyed to the Americas, where his people eventually united with King Mosiah and the Nephites (Omni 1:13–19). In contrast to the voyages made by Lehi’s party and 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). The text does, however, provide several tantalizing clues.
A Plausible Path to the New World
The prophet Amaleki recorded 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 relatively soon after Lehi’s party left Jerusalem, probably about the time of the city’s destruction in 586 BC.
We are told that Mulek’s 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 apparently did not travel alone and may have even been under royal protection of some official guardian. As mentioned in Mosiah 25:2, others “came with him into the wilderness” when he fled Jerusalem.
Although the land they arrived at was north of the landing site of Lehi (Helaman 6:10), the text does not explicitly state whether the Mulekites landed on the east or west coast. Fortunately, the book of Alma records 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, this city may have been named after Mulek shortly after the Mulekites arrived in the New World (Alma 8:7).2 In turn, this would suggest the Mulekites landed on the east coast and therefore 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 One practical way of keeping 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 seems likely that Mulek would not have been 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 a Phoenician, Egyptian, or Greek vessel to take them even farther away from Babylonian influence.7 Most scholars believe such a 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
Phoenician Seafaring Capabilities
Archeological evidence demonstrates that at the time Mulek 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.”10 Phoenician merchants also had trade and communication with Israel, as attested by a bulla detailing “a Phoenician ship with elevated prow and stern, mast, oars, and rudder” dating to the ninth to eighth centuries BC that was found in Jerusalem.11
According to Herodotus, Phoenician sailors were commissioned by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II to circumnavigate Africa around 600 BC.12 The reality 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.” Notably, Herodotus found the position of the sun as reported by sailors at one part of their journey to be unbelievable, yet their account may actually reflect eyewitness knowledge of the skies that would be gained by sailing through the southern hemisphere.13
Replicating a Phoenician Trans-Atlantic Voyage
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.14 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 2020.15 These two journeys demonstrate that Phoenician and similar ancient ships were capable of transoceanic travel and of reaching the Americas as early as 600 BC, if not long before.16
Linguistic Evidence
The Book of Mormon also contains linguistic evidence to support Phoenician contact with the Mulekites. For example, it seems plausible that the River Sidon, a major river coursing through Nephite lands, was named after the Phoenician port of the same name. This river was specifically stated to run by the land of Zarahemla, which might indicate that the Mulekites gave the river its name. The name of one of the most prominent Phoenician ports would be fitting for the Mulekites’ main watercourse.17 It is possible that Sidom (the name for a land that lay alongside the River Sidon), mentioned in Alma 15:1, may be etymologically related to Sidon, and it has been noted that Siron, mentioned in Alma 39:3, is a Phoenician name for Mount Hermon (Deuteronomy 3:9).18
It is interesting that certain names of people and places in the Book of Mormon appear to have Greek etymologies, including Archaentus, Antipas, Timothy, Lachoneus, and Angola.19 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.20
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.”21 The same can be said of Egyptian and Greek (Hellenic) crews that typically hailed from a variety of lands and islands.22
This diversity could explain not only the presence of Greek and Phoenician names within Nephite culture but also the evolution of the Mulekites’ language. It is recorded that when Mosiah and his people initially met the people of Zarahemla, which was more than 350 years after each party landed, they discovered that the Mulekites’ “language had become corrupted; and they had 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.”23 On the other hand, if they were a multilingual group, especially with no written records, their language could have evolved much faster as elements of different languages were mixed together.24
Linguistic data from Native American Languages may also support contact between Phoenicians and the Americas. In recent decades, linguist Brian D. Stubbs has observed many similarities between some New World 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 found that these languages appear to have similarities to ancient Near Eastern languages, including Hebrew, Egyptian, and even Phoenician.25
Conclusion
When the textual data regarding Mulek is fully considered, multiple lines of evidence suggest he boarded a Phoenician ship and sailed across the Atlantic to the Americas. First, it makes sense that Mulek could have escaped to a port city in Egypt or elsewhere along the Mediterranean where such a ship may have been available. Second, we know that the Phoenicians had advanced seafaring capabilities during that time period. Third, thanks to Philip Beale and his crew, we can now be confident that a Phoenician ship from the right time period could indeed cross the Atlantic.
Fourth, the text suggests that the Mulekites landed on an east coast in the Americas, indicating an Atlantic crossing. Fifth, several names of people and locations in the Book of Mormon are consistent with an infusion of a mixed Mediterranean population. Sixth, a multilingual group, as might be expected to occupy a Phoenician ship, could help explain the rapid transformation of the Mulekites’ language in comparison to the Nephites. And, finally, analysis of Native American languages suggests a Phoenician linguistic influence.
While these correspondences do not provide conclusive proof, they offer a plausible historical context that can not only account for Mulek’s journey but may also explain some otherwise puzzling details in the Nephite record. All in all, this background narrative within the Book of Mormon has turned out to be quite believable.
H. Curtis Wright, “Mulek,” in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (Macmillan, 1992), 2:969–970.
John L. Sorenson, “The ‘Mulekites,’” BYU Studies 30, no. 3 (1990): 6–22.
Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 72–83, 117–18.
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).
Philip Beale, Atlantic BC: An Epic Recreation of a Phoenician Voyage 2000 Years Before Columbus (Lulworth Cove Press, 2021).
- 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, “Book of Mormon Evidence: Mulek,” Evidence 102 (March 16, 2022).
- 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. See Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 8: “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 (Jeremiah 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. Whether this vessel intended to sail to the New World or was, perhaps by divine providence, blown off course remains unknown.
- 10. William G. Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah (SBL Press, 2017), 584.
- 11. 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.
- 12. Herodotus, Histories 4.42.2.
- 13. 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.
- 14. 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).
- 15. 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 recorded that it was necessary to use a motorized engine to sail from the Dominican Republic to Florida. See Beale, Atlantic BC, 203–206.
- 16. 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.
- 17. See Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 9; Christensen and Veteto, “Phoenicians and the Ancient Civilizations,” 3. It is also possible, however, that the name Sidon may have been borrowed from the plates of brass (see Genesis 10:19; Judges 18:28).
- 18. 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.
- 19. 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 additional discussion of the Greek names in the Book of Mormon, see Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 289–290.
- 20. 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.”
- 21. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’”10.
- 22. Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, 88. It should also be noted that Amaleki reported the Mulekites “denied the being of their Creator” when Mosiah initially found them (Omni 1:17). Much of their religious confusion could have been brought about if Mulek came to the New World with a crew of diverse cultural backgrounds. If Israelites were not the only ones on the ship, it could have more quickly led to a confusion and amalgamation of religious practices over the years.
- 23. Sorenson, “‘Mulekites,’” 11.
- 24. Alternatively, Christensen and Veteto, “Phoenicians and the Ancient Civilizations,” 3, propose the Mulekites may have only spoken Phoenicia (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 may have been heavily adapted by the time Mosiah and the Nephites met with the people of Zarahemla.
- 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).