Comments on: Reading Nephi – 9

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:34:42 +0000

Peter the issue of how an oral text would develop is an interesting one. Also the issue of how “inspired” writing tends to develop. (Putting that in quotes since I’m more thinking to examples Mormons would not consider inspired to parallel a kind of unconscious but uninspired view of Joseph composing the Book of Mormon – if only to see differences) My guess, although I don’t know, is that we’d expect to find differences from either of these in terms of the Book of Mormon text.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:32:51 +0000

Isn’t Deuteronomist history a bit under dispute at the moment with big battles raging over when even to date the D sources? I thought the movement now was to date it after exile rather than the earlier period. Admittedly my problem with a lot of disputes is that once you work through the actual arguments rather than just look at the consensus the arguments are all pretty weak with a lot of at best circumstantial evidence. i.e. that the details of not only source criticism but other movements are not exactly sound knowledge.

I do agree that given most treatments of D that the Nephites differ greatly due to having a cultic emphasis on worship within the family and aways from centralized worship in Jerusalem. (The latter often attributed to the P source and seen as part and parcel of the post exilic centralization)

The other question of course is over sacred texts. We see what sure looks like Merkabah texts not only in Mosiah 15 but also in 1 Nephi 11 and elsewhere. Likewise it seems we have emphasis to at least the second creation account but unless I missed it not to the 1st creation account. (The creation account in Psalms parallels could come from allusions in Isaiah) A lot of interpreters see Genesis 1 coming from Babylon primarily due to parallels with Babylonian ritual and cosmology. Although some of the issues such as naming are in the second creation account too.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:11:55 +0000

My thought about the clunky grammar of ‘the more part’ is that it sounds like one of the many places in the Book of Mormon that read like a literal translation from a foreign language where the grammar is not compatible with English, or you have a symbol representing the concept of ‘extra’ or ’emphasis’ but it isn’t easy to be sure which more nuanced English word to go with. Unless Joseph’s grammar was really that bad, which it doesn’t seem to be from other things he wrote at the time and doesn’t match spoken bad grammar anyway, the Book of Mormon often reads like my early attempts at translating French at school and trying to reconstruct sentences originally written with the words in different orders. I am now a teacher and I see things like that every so often written by pupils for whom English is a second language.

So my conclusion based on experience, but not claiming advanced expertise, is that these odd grammatical structures represent someone in the act of translation looking visually at words and dealing with written foreign text, not how someone who was an articulate and practiced storyteller orally, as Joseph had been since childhood according to the family and as often mentioned by reasonable and hostile sceptics, would speak if he was making it up; and probably not how he would dictate if he was reciting something he had memorised after he and other accomplices had faked the text in advance, even if he was bungling the recital.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:01:08 +0000

I also think that the “record of the Kings” is kind of like the Deuteronomist History, which Nephi would have been familiar with, but which was controversial at his time. My feelings are that the Brass Plates didn’t have as much D in them as our current Hebrew Bible. The Book of Mormon is clearly edited by someone who ISN’T a D follower (Mormon). Otherwise, the story of Mosiah 1, Benjamin and Mosiah II would be more like the story of Saul, David, and Solomon (none of whom ended well). Of course, the story of King Noah fills in that theme nicely, but perhaps I’m digressing.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:04:17 +0000

Yeah 2 Nephi really seems more like a collection of patriarchal blessings, sermons, and commentary. Although the transition point is much more 1 Nephi 19 rather than 2 Nephi. More like we’d expect. 1 Nephi is as you note a bit more schizophrenic. We have history mixed with a bit of spiritual stuff primarily focused around Nephi’s vision. However once he mentions the plates it really shifts. I almost think 1 Nephi 19 would make a better start for 2 Nephi. 1 Nephi 22 and 2 Nephi 1 blend together. (2 Nephi even starts with “And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of teaching my brethren” referring I think to the sermon at the end of 1 Nephi)

I can’t recall during the translation process what breaks were put in here. I’m at work so I can’t look it up either. But I bet the 1 Nephi / 2 Nephi transition is either problematic or is due to Nephi running out of plates.

By: James Olsen

James Olsen — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:10:18 +0000

Clark: I think that most of II Nephi is no longer an edited version of the Large Plates. As you note, it’s almost entirely Isaiah & Nephi’s commentary on Isaiah & messianic themes. I also think it shows that this concern for his family/people and their legitimate tie into the covenant of Israel was a matter of growing importance to Nephi in the New World.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:05:59 +0000

I’ll lay good odds there’s less Isaiah commentary in the other plates.

It’s interesting as the separation becomes significant later on as the Kings and Prophets more or less separate. As you note we tend to read it in terms of the 116 pages but I suspect we’re seeing an early distinction over the issue of politics.

By: Rob Osborn

Rob Osborn — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:12:18 +0000

Chapter 9 is pretty straightforward. Nephi is not lousy. Where does that idea come from?