In the prior post on this subject, we considered the potential roots and meaning of the name Zerach’mla in the Stick of Joseph. We also noted this place name likely comes from Aramaic, rather than Hebrew, roots. In this post, we’ll consider why the Nefite capital had an Aramaic name. 

We’ll begin with the first introduction of Zerach’mla in the Nefite record. It occurs when the fleeing refugees under king Moshiyah “were led by many preachings and prophesyings, and they were admonished continually by the word of Elohim. And they were led by the power of his arm through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zerach’mla.” (Ameni 1:6).

Language Barrier

At this point, the Mulochites, who dwelt at Zerach’mla and the Nefites under Moshiyah first encountered one another, and quickly discovered they faced a language barrier in their attempts to communicate, recorded in the Stick of Joseph as follows:

And they discovered a people who were called the people of Zerach’mla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zerach’mla, and also, Zerach’mla did rejoice exceedingly because YHWH had sent the people of Moshiyah with the plates of brass, which contained the record of the Y’hudim.

Behold, it came to pass that Moshiyah discovered that the people of Zerach’mla came out from Yerushalayim at the time that Tzidkiyahu king of Y’hudah was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journeyed in the wilderness and were brought by the hand of YHWH across the great waters, into the land where Moshiyah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth. And at the time that Moshiyah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time. And their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator. And neither Moshiyah, nor the people of Moshiyah, could understand them. But it came to pass that Moshiyah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Moshiyah, Zerach’mla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory. And they are written, but not in these plates.

And it came to pass that the people of Zerach’mla and of Moshiyah did unite together, and Moshiyah was appointed to be their king. 

(Ameni 1:6-8)

From this passage, we learn of two distinct groups who came to the New World from Judah about 400 years earlier. Yet after only 400 years of separation, the Nefites could not understand the Mulochite language. By comparison, the average English speaker today can reasonably understand the 400-year-old English of the King James Bible of 1611. Though languages naturally drift over time in separation, we cannot conclude time and distance are sufficient to explain such radical differences as to render communication impossible. 

“Corrupted” 

Additionally, we must consider the Nefite assertion that the Mulochite language had become “corrupted.” This implies the Nefites assumed the Mulochites had spoken Hebrew previously but the Mulochite Hebrew had changed enough to become incomprehensible to the Nefites. Such an assumption also implies there is something familiar to the Nefites about the Mulochite language, driving the assertion that it was corrupted Hebrew. Again, using English as our example, A native English speaker from America, upon encountering a language with similar roots such as Latin or German, would note many words with a familiar ring to them, though communication would be impossible. This “familiar ring” would not occur with an American encountering Mandarin, Japanese or Swahili, which come from completely different language families than English an share no roots in common. Therefore, it’s reasonable to presume the languages of the Nefites and Mulochites shared similar roots, but also significant differences.

Given the potential Aramaic derivation of the name Zerach’mla, it’s reasonable to consider the strong possibility that, whereas the Nefites spoke Hebrew, the Mulochites spoke Aramaic. These two languages both belong to the Northwest Semitic language group, so they are in the same language family, and bear many similarities, much like Spanish and Italian do today. They are written with the same 22 characters, and share many of the same roots and grammar, though word construction, pronunciation, grammatical differences, prefixes, suffixes, and other factors render the languages different enough that speakers of one find the other unintelligible. The Nefites, having never encountered Aramaic in living memory, might easily have the language for corrupt Hebrew.

Who were the Mulochites? 

The Mulochites originated when an unidentified group rescued Muloch, one of King Zedekiah’s sons, from execution. The Scriptures tell us that Zedekiah’s sons were executed by the King of Babylon (2 Kings 25:7; Jer. 39:6-7) but fail to note that one of the King’s sons escaped and eventually journeyed to the New World. However, a prophecy in Ezekiel 17:1-24 censures the King of Judah and prophesies his destruction, but also speaks of a “tender one” a “twig,” apparently a son of Zedekiah, transplanted to a “mountain” to flourish elsewhere.  

Some party rescued Muloch from certain death and smuggled him across the sea (Ameni 1:7 and Cheleman 2:29, 3:9) But this party left no records, so we do not know what person or group carried out the rescue. If they spoke Aramaic, it would explain the apparent Aramaic language of those that settled the Northern part of the Nefite lands. (Cheleman 2:29) Naturally we must be curious about an Aramaic-speaking group rescuing the future king of Judah, given that Aramaic was the language of Judah’s Babylonian enemies, and not the Judeans.

It may be that a group of “third column” Babylonians, or Jews culturally allied with Babylon, could have had both the motive and opportunity to rescue Muloch and thus preserve the line of Davidic kings. Such a group would likely have spoken Aramaic, not Hebrew. Likewise, Jews from the region of Syria, whose spoken language would have been Aramaic may have been responsible for the rescue. 

Regardless of who the rescuers were, the Bible demonstrates that some Jews, particularly among the noble class, spoke and understood Aramaic, while most of the Jewish population of Judea did not. When the King of Assyria sent an insulting message to the Jewish leadership, the nobles asked that it be delivered in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, so the common people would not understand message:

26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

27 But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you.

28 Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria:

(2 Kings 18:26-28 KJV)

The Syrian language was Aramaic and the Jews’ language was Hebrew.  In fact the Hebrew word for “Syrian language” in verse 26 means literally “Aramaic” and is translated “Aramaic” in many modern translations. This biblical example shows that there was a language barrier between Hebrew and Aramaic speakers, and that some Jews of high station spoke both languages.

Aramaic in the Stick of Joseph

As we demonstrated in the prior blog post, the name Zerach’mla seems to be a compound of two Aramaic words. Additionally, the name “Alma,” which plays an important role in Stick of Joseph history is actually an Aramaic form of the Biblical Hebrew name “Elam.” Several other Aramaic words appear transliterated into the text, such as Rabbanah (Alma 18:13) Raca (3Nefi 12:22) and Mammon (3Nefi 13:24). Moreover the “n”| ending on many proper nouns may point to Aramaic influence. While the plural masculine ending in Hebrew is -im, in Aramaic it is -in. Likewise many pronouns that end in “m” in Hebrew, end in “n” in their Aramaic forms.

To summarize, the Mulochites spoke a language that was vaguely familiar, yet unintelligible to the Hebrew-speaking Nefites. The proper noun Zerach’mla appears to be Aramaic, and the name “Alma” is an Aramaic form of the Hebrew name “Elam.” Several other Aramaic words are found transliterated into the Stick of Joseph. It therefore seems likely that the Mulochites were an Aramaic-speaking people, and that their merger with the Nefites brought many Aramaic loan words and Aramaic elements into the Nefite language.