Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The Book of Mormon prophet Lehi likely lived most of his life in the Old World during the reign of Josiah, who ruled Judah from around 641 to 609 B.C. Josiah is most famous for enacting a number of drastic religious reforms during his reign which resulted from him royally mandating the book of Deuteronomy and including it in the Mosiac law. Among the reforms demanded by the book of Deuteronomy, Josiah centralized worship of Yahweh (Jehovah) to Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:19-20); he removed the religious iconography from the Jerusalem temple, including the asherah and pillars (2 Kings 23:6; cf. Deut. 12:3); he executed priests of gods other than Yahweh (2 Kings 23:5, 20); sacrifices outside of the temple were forbidden; and he attempted to shut down the ‘high places,’ which were temple-like sites across Judah where local peoples traditionally worshipped Yahweh (2 Kings 23:8-9, 19-20; cf. Deut. 33:29).

The Bible speaks extremely favorably of Josiah and his reforms: “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.” (2 Kings 23:25) Indeed Josiah is only one of two kings spoken of favorably in the Old Testament history, along with his great-grandfather Hezekiah who attempted a similar reform.

But perhaps Lehi of Jerusalem did not look very favorably on Josiah’s reforms–or at least his son Nephi, who authored the narrative of 1 & 2 Nephi, didn’t.  Nephi says, “For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.” (2 Nephi 25:2, emphasis added)  Indeed in his narrative of his father Lehi, Nephi seems to intentionally contrast his father with the corrupt Jewish religion brought about by Josiah’s reforms and attempts to associate Lehi with the more ancient pre-monarchic traditions.

After a brief introduction, Nephi begins his narrative by recounting a theophany of his father.  Lehi was praying for the people of Jerusalem when suddenly a pillar of fire appears and dwells on a ‘rock’ before him (1 Nephi 1:5-6).  The image of the “pillar of fire” draws from the Exodus account of God guiding the Israelites through the wilderness, which is associated with the Tabernacle imagery–perhaps used by Nephi in order to contrast Lehi’s manner of worship with Josiah’s ‘corrupt’ reform of the temple.  Nephi also claims the pillar comes and dwells on a ‘rock’, from the context likely referring to an altar.  Per Josiah’s reforms, sacrifices could only be offered by priests at the Jerusalem temple.  Lehi was neither a priest nor was he at Jerusalem.  After Lehi and family depart into the wilderness, Nephi explicitly notes, ”And it came to pass that he [Lehi] built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God” (1 Nephi 2:7).  Again, per Josiah, sacrifices could only be offered by Levitical priests and at the Jerusalem temple.  Lehi clearly disregards Josiah’s new religious laws.  Similarly Nephi ordains his brothers as priests and the Nephites build multiple temples in the  New World, contrary to Deuteronomistic law.

Also in his initial theophany, Nephi describes Lehi seeing “One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day” (1 Nephi 1:9).  Describing deity in solar terms isn’t extremely common in the Old Testament, but it does occur, and is likely reminiscent of an older Israelite theology.  Psalm 84:11 describes Yahweh as “a sun and a shield.”  In some ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, the bull–a symbol for El/Yahweh–is portrayed with a solar disk above him or between his horns.  As part of Josiah’s reform, he removed the solar imagery in the temple: “And he [Josiah] took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun at the entering of the house of the LORD…and burned the chariots of the sun with fire” (2 Kings 23:11).  Nephi’s description of deity using empyreal imagery stands in sharp contrast to Josiah’s condemnation of solar imagery related to deity.

Then in his narrative Nephi includes a brief statement that, at first glance, seems odd and out of context: “And my father dwelt in a tent” (1 Nephi 2:15).  However, as he did at the beginning of his narrative, Nephi seems to be emphasizing his father’s living condition in order to associate his father with the pre-monarchic narratives in the Old Testament.  According to Genesis, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12:8; 26:17, 25; 31:24) each traveled and dwelt in “tents”.  Abraham and Jacob both built altars and offered sacrifices after pitching their tents, exactly as Lehi does.  Were Nephi just interested in telling us his father’s living conditions, it seems odd that he would mention it multiple times, that he would mention it in such a context, and that he would single out his father–didn’t Nephi, Sam, Sariah, etc. live in a tent too?

Later Nephi details an elaborate vision his father experiences (and which Nephi later shares in experiencing) which focused on the tree of life (1 Nephi 8:10-11; 11:8).  The tree of life imagery is likely associated with the asherah, the images of which were expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy and were removed from the temple by Josiah.  The tree of life imagery perhaps recalls an earlier, pre-Josiah tradition associated with Eden and the temple.

Nephi’s distaste for Josiah’s reform makes sense.  Lehi and Nephi weren’t native Judeans.  They were descendants of Manasseh and thus likely immigrated from the northern kingdom — perhaps at Hezekiah’s request a century before (see 2 Chronicles 30) during Israel’s collapse.   They would have been accustomed to different sacrificial laws and would have likely worshipped at ‘high places,’ the local temple-like sites where sacrifices and prayers were offered.  Indeed the Nephites may have preserved a more ancient–and simpler– form of Israelite religion, largely untainted by Josiah’s reform.

Today William Schryver presented “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers” at the 2010 FAIR Conference. Will promised that it would completely change the paradigm of Book of Abraham apologetics, of which I was skeptical, but now that I’ve watched his presentation, his conclusions are very interesting. As I’ve mentioned a few times already, I think Will’s thesis should be slightly modified. But nevertheless I think Will has successfully deciphered (no pun intended) the relationship between the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the Book of Abraham, and he has come close to solving the puzzle of what exactly the KEP are.

Will has graciously put his presentation online, and I encourage anyone with a deep interest in early Mormon history, the Book of Abraham, apologetics, or any combination of those, to watch his presentation.

Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” Part 1
Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” Part 2

A couple friends and myself recently founded the BYU Association of Biblical Studies, a new student organization at Brigham Young University devoted (per the name) to promoting critical study of the Bible. Our group operates independent of any academic department, but our student-members are mostly from the Ancient Near Eastern Studies (ANES), History, and Classics majors. We’ve set up this site where we will announce upcoming events and other things of interest, as well as provide information about our organization.

First of all, I apologize if this isn’t too coherent. I’m running on little sleep, but I thought about this last night and wanted to see what others thought.

According to the Book of Mormon, many “plain and precious things” were taken away from the Bible by that “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:28). Afterward, the Bible circulated among the Gentile nations and made it across the “many waters” (13:29), and because of the removal of the “plain and precious things,” it caused many of the Gentiles to stumble and enter into an “awful state of blindness” (13:29, 32). Nephi states that the “plain and precious things” were “plain unto the understanding of the children of men” (13:29). As a result of the G&A Church removing these things, the Lord will bring forth many things that are “plain and precious” through the Book of Mormon (13:35), and then later records will also “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away” (13:40).

The traditional interpretation of the G&A Church removing the “plain and precious things” from the Bible is basically what Joseph Smith said occurred during the transmission of the text: “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (TPJS, 327). Maybe more emphasis on the corrupt priests. We imagine malevolent students of Satan meticulously removing parts of the Bible that they didn’t like. Doctrines like Christian temple work, exaltation, the pre-existence, Gethsemane, the Spirit World, etc., were probably all in the original Bibles, but the G&A Church clipped them out.

The problem with this is that the Book of Mormon states the removal of the “plain and precious things” happened post-New Testament. This editing occurred during the Christian era, the BoM text says. But there’s no evidence that any mass editing of the Bible occurred during this time period, and, IMHO, there’s much to the contrary. Evil Jews didn’t remove overt references to Christ from the OT. Not to say that there weren’t massive editings and redactions of the OT; but these were complete, for the vastly greatest part, prior to the Christian era.

As for the NT, the Book of Mormon specifically gives the book of Revelation as an example. Nephi notes that the Revelation of John “at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men” (14:23), implying that the plain and precious things of John’s Revelation were removed as well. However, there’s no evidence for any overt editing of the book of Revelation in its early stages that would make it significantly less easy to understand.

I think that maybe we’re misunderstanding Nephi. “Things” is an ambiguous word, and it might be significant that Nephi/Joseph Smith uses the word “things” instead of words like “passages,” “verses,” or “words.” Maybe the “plain and precious things” removed from the Bible–and which the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Gospel helped to restore–weren’t actually passages of text cut out by the Great and Abominable Church. Maybe, as perhaps here with the Book of Revelation, it was just the book’s easiness to understand that they removed. If this is the case, then John’s first readers correctly understood the symbolism of his text, but that plain interpretation was lost when the book went into the hands of the G&A Church.

If that’s the case, then it wasn’t that the Harlot of all the earth removed the plainest passages of the Bible and only left us the confusing parts. Instead, the Great and Abominable Church changed the lens through which every generation of future Christians would view the parts of the Bible. The “plain and precious things” that were taken away weren’t actual passages of text; rather they were the plain teachings of Jesus and the Apostles through which the Bible was to be understood.

The corrupt lens of the Great and Abominable Church led to false doctrines on the Trinity, baptism, ordinances, salvation, the afterlife, etc., the truths of which Latter-day Saints see clearly in the Bible, but which aren’t plain to non-LDS Christians. Jesus’ teaching that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” didn’t change. The G&A Church didn’t edit that verse out of the Bible. But they did eventually remove the plain and precious way of understanding it.

Critics often ask, if the BoM is the most correct book, what does it teach that the Bible doesn’t? If it’s the case that the G&A Church didn’t actually remove doctrinal passages from the Bible but instead removed the plain way of understanding the passages still in the Bible, then the significance of the Book of Mormon is that it restores the plain and precious things needed to plainly and correctly interpret the Bible. It’s not new or radical doctrines that make the Book of Mormon so important; rather, it’s that the Book of Mormon provides the restitution of a plain understanding of the Gospel.

I’m not contending that biblical passages weren’t altered, even during the early Christian era. There’s solid evidence that that occurred. But I don’t think it occurred enough to merit the prophecies of the Book of Mormon, and I think this interpretation makes much more sense when considering the total context of the Book of Mormon as well as the textual transmission of the Bible.


Animals hanging out in Eden

“Only one name is not pronounced in the world, the name the Father gave the Son. It is the name above all; it is the Father’s name. For the Son would not have become Father if he had not put on the Father’s name.”

Gospel of Philip 54:5-12

In the Genesis myth, Adam is living alone in Eden when, in Gen. 2:19f, God brings him every animal so that Adam can name them.  This is a story that every kid in primary is familiar with.  Since we’re so familiar with, I doubt any of us ever really give it much thought.  But why was it important for Adam to name every animal?

The first and most obvious answer is that the animals did not yet have names.  But why does God have Adam name the animals?  Why is it significant that the animals be named and not the plants or the inanimate objects? Why does God not name the animals?

Genesis 2 — where this story occurs — is essentially the same account of creation given in Genesis 1, but in less cosmic terms.  Genesis 2 is the older of the two tellings.  Because Genesis 1 is a retelling of Genesis 2, it should have a passage that parallels the account of Adam naming the animals. And it does! Gen. 1:28: “Be fruitful, and multiply…and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 2 explains how Adam receives dominion over “every living thing” — because God brings them to Adam for Adam to name!  By personally giving names to each animal, Adam receives personal dominion over them, as God intended.

The name is a mystical and powerful attribute in ancient thought.  According to ancient Greek magic papyri, one could gain power over another by learning his name, and one could only invoke the power of a deity if he knew the true name of the deity.  The importance of the name is prevalent in biblical thought as well.   In the book of Hebrews, the author states that after Christ was resurrected, he was given a more exalted name to match his exalted status (Heb. 1:4). After the patriarch Jacob wrestles with the angel, he begs, “Tell me, I pray thee, thy name” (Gen. 32:29).  In the New Testament, when the high priests interrogate Peter and John, they ask “by what power, or by what name” (Acts 4:7) the apostles worked, revealing that they understood the name to be synonymous with the power itself.

As in Hebrews, receiving a new name can reflect an exalted status, such as in Isa. 62:2: “Thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.  Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of God.”  According to the book of Revelation, those that ‘overcome’ will receive a white stone, “and in the stone a new name written” (Rev. 2:17), and then Christ declares that those who ‘overcome’ will “sit with me in my throne” (3:12).

Association with a name–especially the divine name of deity–also represents one’s status in ancient texts.  According to the book of Revelation, the righteous will have the name of the Father written “in their foreheads” (Rev. 14:1; 22:4), a motif also reflected in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah (1:9).  One Gnostic Christian gospel expounds on the importance of being associated with God’s divine name: “Who then can utter his Name, the great Name, except him alone to who the name belongs, and the children of the Name, on whom the Father’s name rests, and who themselves rest on the Name?” (Gospel of Truth 38:6-41:3).  According to the Gospel of Philip, the Son became the Father because the Father gave him his name (Philip 54:5-13).

In the Genesis 2 account, because of the significance of something’s name, Adam giving the animals their names represents Adam’s dominion over them.  Similarly when Israel conquered lands, they renamed them to show their dominion over the land (c.f. Ps. 49:11).  The same motif is reflected in biblical accounts of God renaming people, although in a more positive sense — for example, Abraham (Gen 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:38), and in the New Testament when Jesus renames Simon to Peter (Mark 3:16).

Understanding the importance of the name–especially the divine name–in ancient thought casts new light on seemingly simple biblical accounts so familiar that we never give them a passing thought, such as God bringing animals to Adam to name.  It also shows the seriousness of the commandment given to Moses not to take the Lord’s name in vain (Ex. 20: 7), as well as the Lord’s threat to blot out the names of the unrighteous in heaven (Deut. 9:14; 29:20).

Older Posts »