Olive Culture

[grego]

How much do you know about olives, Lamanite? Do you have much experience running an olive orchard?

Hey, cinepro, how much do you know about breast cancer?

[Lamanite]

Thanks for following up sargon. I'm assuming cinepro has recused himself from the conversation for whatever reason. Anyone else? I'm genuinely sincere. Usually I create my own list of pro's and con's and develop opposing arguements, but in this case I'm stumped. Only the Joseph's explaination of the Books origin can explain it.

Any other contributors?

[cksalmon]

Hello CK,

I would like to get your opinion on the matter. You don't have to know anything about Olive Branches. Just go home and read Jacob chapter 5 and come back and tell us what your initial reaction to it is.

I'm really curious to know,

Cheers,

Auteur

I'm reading it. My first question would be, What is an olive tree doing in a vineyard? Shouldn't it be in a grove? The two fruits prefer, or at least I think prefer, dissimilar soils.

Jacob 5.41 ("What could I have done more for my vineyard?") contains a quotation from Isaiah 5.4 (KJV):

What could have been done more to my vineyard?

Isaiah is obviously speaking of grapes.

Jacob 5.41 is apparently quoting Isaiah's lament about wild grapes in a vineyard, and conflating it with Pauline language about olive trees (in Romans 11).

After a cursory glance at the materials, I'd say those are the parable's two oddly-juxtaposed sources. I'm sure there's more to be said than that, but I'll have to dig deeper.

EDIT:

It seems that vineyards and olive orchards are frequently symbolically paired in OT, but they are not presented, that I can find, as being planted together in the same field. Perhaps JS noticed the frequent pairing of the two fruits in OT and conflated the Pauline olive material with Isaiah's vineyard material (from which BoM quotes). To me, it looks like those two metaphors have been conflated and extended to imply something about New World descendants of Jews (per BoM's storyline).

What parts specifically are considered by LDS to be very impressive?

Best.

CKS

[Jaybear]

Thanks for following up sargon. I'm assuming cinepro has recused himself from the conversation for whatever reason. Anyone else? I'm genuinely sincere. Usually I create my own list of pro's and con's and develop opposing arguements, but in this case I'm stumped. Only the Joseph's explaination of the Books origin can explain it.

Any other contributors?

Can you be more specific.

What specific techniques are described in the text that a person in New England circa 1830 with a mind to write on the subject would not have known, and could not have found about without divine intervention.

Just the two or three most amazing ones would be great.

[cinepro]

An honest and wise move. Otherwise you'll be eating crow like Cinepro who thinks there is nothing impressive about the five page allegory.

I like my crows with olive oil.

But seriously, my original points still stand, and I think Jaybear has ably expressed why the issue falls so flat for so many. What verses in Jacob 5 point to unusual or unknown olive cultivation knowledge?

If someone had a general understanding of agricultural techniques, an idea of how you see the history of Israel playing out, and Romans 11 (which introduces the idea of grafting, good and bad trees, and the olive trees as an allegory for God's dealings with Israel), which part of Jacob 5 could they not come up with?

And please tell me why the ancient prophet Zenos would illustrate a lengthy allegory that just happens to describe the history of Israel up to 1829AD, and then fall suddenly silent to the degree that people in the 19th century are totally unable to find any descriptive quality beyond what has already happened. What are the odds of that happening?

The whole problem with this thread is one so common in apologetic arguments: "Hey, I don't know anything about this subject, but I read a bunch of apologetic works, and I think it's absolutely fabulous!" Incidentally, the exact same thing happens with Lehi's journey. A believer takes an imprecise, generally worded portion of scripture, adds a bunch of conjecture and scholarship to support their idea, and suddenly it's a miracle how "descriptive" and "prescient" the scripture is. It's a miracle I tell you! It had to be God, because there's no other rational explanation!

[structurecop]

One is that a group of horticulturists (specialists in tree culture) looked at the account of olive culture and olive production in the Book of Mormon in Jacob 5 and found that in virtually every detail, it matches what we actually know about how olive trees are treated, how they are grown, cultivated, and cared for.

I have not read the Nibley book on the topic, but who are these horticulturists exactly?

[Son]

Here is some info on the Allegory that might be of interest:Hope this helps.

Did you forget the leaves. The love of Christ shed through the hearts of men.

[Lamanite]

I forgot this thread existed. I'm bumping it to see if DCP has any input or additional insights.

[Daniel Peterson]

I haven't looked at the topic for ages, but John Gee and I have a substantial article on ancient olive cultivation in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 (Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994). This is a very substantial book (not to say a hefty and long one) that features strong articles by people from classics, horticulture, Egyptology, etc., and also, among many other topics, actually addresses the matter of vineyards and orchards raised above.

[Lamanite]

I haven't looked at the topic for ages, but John Gee and I have a substantial article on ancient olive cultivation in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 (Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994). This is a very substantial book (not to say a hefty and long one) that features strong articles by people from classics, horticulture, Egyptology, etc., and also, among many other topics, actually addresses the matter of vineyards and orchards raised above.

Like I said, I did my own research in the library just reading stuff on general horticulture with a smattering of middle eastern stuff.

I've never read any apologetic assertions except for the stuff in this thread. Is there stuff in Jacob 5 that is unique only to middle eastern olive culture?

PS. I'm going to get the book. I'm suprised I've never heard or seen the book considering the publishing date.

[Dan Vogel]

I read Zenos' allegory of the Olive tree last night. As an evidence for the authenticity of the BoM I think it is one of the most impressive. Is there an antagonist that can explain it?

I wrote about this in my bio of JS. Itâ??s difficult to believe that an Israelite prophet would give elaborate details about Nephite history in an allegory that no one could understand except modern-day readers of the BOM. It was one of the last things JS dictated, so he knew the story well.

This is what I wrote:

Essentially, it elaborates Lehiâ??s allegory of the olive tree (cf. 1 Ne. 10:12-14;15:12-16), which in turn was inspired by Romans 11:11-14. Smith follows Paulâ??s error of grafting branches from a wild olive tree into a cultivated tree. Nevertheless, Smith. â?¦

The first thing one notices about Zenosâ?? allegory is the apparent anomalous setting of olive trees in â??vineyards,â? which was forbidden by Jewish law (Deut. 22:9) even though the rule was not enforced by New Testament times (Luke 13:6). The allegory describes the husbandry of the olive treesâ??pruning, grafting, fertilizationâ??in terms that would have been familiar to those working apple orchards (60) such as the Smiths had in Norwich, Vermont, and on their farm in Manchester, New York. â?¦

The act of cutting off and burning dead branches is reflected in John 15:5-6 and was undoubtedly employed on the Smith farm. â?¦

Finally, in order to revive the roots, the master tells his servants to take branches from wild olive trees and graft them onto the old tree (v. 9). This probably comes from Romans 11 and 1 Nephi 10 and represents the grafting in of gentiles, although one does not normally graft wild branches into cultivated trees. â?¦

Upon inspecting the tree, they discover that the grafted branches have begun to bear fruit, that the fruit was â??good â?¦ like unto the natural fruitâ? (5:17). Genetically, this is impossibility, for the grafted branches of a wild olive tree will not bear the same quality fruit as the cultivated tree. â?¦

In another part of the vineyard, the master has planted in a â??good spot of groundâ? but the branches produce â??wild fruitâ? along with â??tame fruitâ? (5:25), representing the Lamanites and Nephites in the choice land of America. This mixture of wild and tame olives on a single cultivated branch is impossible. â?¦

The master says to the servant, â??The time draweth near, and the end soon cometh; wherefore, I must lay up fruit against the season, unto mine own selfâ? (5:29). They inspect the tree that had wild and tame branches and see that it has born â??all sorts of fruitâ? (5:30). After tasting the fruit, the master finds that none of it is good (5:32). Evidently, Smith was unaware of how bitter olives are on the tree and that they cannot be casually sampled before being cured, which can take from several days to even months, without which one would not think of tasting them. â?¦

In an anachronistic allusion to Matthew 19:30 and 20:16, the lord of the vineyard then directs his servants to â??begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees â?¦â?

[T]here are other influences at play in the allegory such as the parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1-7 (cf. 2 Ne. 15:1-7) and the parable of the fig tree in Luke 13:6-9, the latter of which contains concepts and words similar to Zenosâ?? allegory. In Lukeâ??s parable, a â??certain manâ? had planted a fig tree in his â??vineyard.â? When the man visits the vineyard after three years and finds the tree is barren, he asks the caretaker why he has allowed the tree to remain in the vineyard (â??why cumbereth it the ground?â? [cf. Jacob 5:9]) and orders him to cut it down. The servant asks the man to spare the tree for another years, â??till I shall dig about it, and dung itâ? (cf. Jacob 5:45). Then â??if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.â? â?¦

In light of its obvious singularity, it is remarkable that Zenosâ?? allegory is not subsequently mentioned by any Nephite prophet. As with polygamy, the allegoryâ??s absence from Nephite literature is the result of the order of Smithâ??s dictation.

--Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 454-57.

------------------------------

(60) See Gleaning from the Most Celebrated Books of Husbandry, Gardening, and rural Affairs (Philadelphia: Humphries, 1803), 7-9; Boston Recorder, 1 Feb. 1823, 20.

[maupayman]

Lamanite,

I started a thread on this very topic quite some time ago and not one critic came into the thread to touch it. Cinepro's "graft" criticism is the closest i've seen and it doesn't come close to discounting how complex and rich this five page allegory is.

I personally am in awe every time I read it and am surprised I don't hear about it more. My opinion is that a critic won't touch it because they wouldn't know where to begin and it is indeed very impressive work on Joseph's part.

I believe that Palmer also briefly addresses this topic in his book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

[maupayman]

I believe that Palmer also briefly addresses this topic in his book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

when i have some time i will try and find what he said

[RhipSaw2]

Dan Vogel

Upon inspecting the tree, they discover that the grafted branches have begun to bear fruit, that the fruit was â??good â?¦ like unto the natural fruitâ? (5:17). Genetically, this is impossibility, for the grafted branches of a wild olive tree will not bear the same quality fruit as the cultivated tree. â?¦

DCP

One of the articlesâ??and article that I was involved withâ??in this book on Jacob 5 uncovered evidence that in the ancient Mediterranean world, they were aware of the possibility that miraculously, a wild olive branch grafted into a tame olive tree could produce tame fruit. It doesn't happen naturally, but it can happen miraculously. And the prophetic figures of the ancient Mediterranean, specifically Greek thinkers and so on, saw this as a sign from God. It was a miraculous intervention from God, something that contravened the normal laws of olive cultivation and production.

Who's right here?

[Hammer]

How much do you know about olives, Lamanite? Do you have much experience running an olive orchard?

Also, it's odd that the branches are propagated through two methods: grafting (attached to an existing tree/population) and planting (seperated and used to start a totally new tree/population). The modern apologetic stance for the Book of Mormon has the Lehites joining up with a larger existing population, which would be a graft, but verses 24 & 25, which seem to apply to the Lehites, describe their separation to the New World as a planting, not a grafting, with the Nephites and Lamanites both being parts of this one tree.

If the Lehites found existing populations and were subsequently subsumed by the existing religions and cultures, wouldn't this be a "graft", and not a "planting"? Could Jacob 5 present problems for the theory that there were existing populations represented in the Book of Mormon?

huh, all this time I thought it was talking about the bigger picture of God's people. Not just those here in the US.

[Lamanite]

I wrote about this in my bio of JS. Itâ??s difficult to believe that an Israelite prophet would give elaborate details about Nephite history in an allegory that no one could understand except modern-day readers of the BOM. It was one of the last things JS dictated, so he knew the story well.

This is what I wrote:

That was good stuff, it was exactly what I was looking for. I need to do some comparative studies but it gave me a great jumping off point.

PS We've never talked before but I was wondering how you felt when Richard Bushman suggested you might be, "Joseph's chief antagonist these days" (One the road with Joseph Smith, pg 120) I think he also said you knew more about Joseph than anyone else. (Couldn't find the quote) Thanks for the response on Olives.

Big UP

Sione

[Dan Vogel]

That was good stuff, it was exactly what I was looking for. I need to do some comparative studies but it gave me a great jumping off point.

Glad I could help.

PS We've never talked before but I was wondering how you felt when Richard Bushman suggested you might be, "Joseph's chief antagonist these days" (One the road with Joseph Smith, pg 120) I think he also said you knew more about Joseph than anyone else. (Couldn't find the quote) Thanks for the response on Olives.

Big UP

Sione

Well, I guess he could say worse things about me.

I think there are others who know more about various aspects of JS's life than I do. I'm sure the Joseph Smith project folks are more knowledgable than I am about JS.

[grego]

RhipSaw2 wrote: Who's right here?

You might, I think, have missed this part:

And it's all accurate down to the last detailâ??with one notable exception. And that is that in the account in Jacob 5, it said that graftings from wild olive treesâ??or little pieces of wild olive treeâ??are grafted into the main olive tree, the domesticated olive tree, and then they produce tame fruit. Now, that doesn't happen. A wild olive branch, even if grafted into a tame olive tree, will still produce wild fruit. It will survive, but it won't produce tame fruit simply because it's grafted into a tame olive tree. So, is this an error on the part of the Book of Mormon? No, not really.

One of the articlesâ??and article that I was involved withâ??in this book on Jacob 5 uncovered evidence that in the ancient Mediterranean world, they were aware of the possibility that miraculously, a wild olive branch grafted into a tame olive tree could produce tame fruit. It doesn't happen naturally, but it can happen miraculously. And the prophetic figures of the ancient Mediterranean, specifically Greek thinkers and so on, saw this as a sign from God. It was a miraculous intervention from God, something that contravened the normal laws of olive cultivation and production.

Well, what does it stand for in the account of the Book of Mormon? It stands for the conversion of Gentiles into people of the house of Israel. It's a miraculous transformation, exactly what the Book of Mormon would have it be. And this is a remarkable thing.

IOW, what seems to be an error at first, is actually a strong support.

-=-=-=

Itâ??s difficult to believe that an Israelite prophet would give elaborate details about Nephite history in an allegory that no one could understand except modern-day readers of the BOM.

As a matter of fact, just this year Jacob 5 was voted #1 easiest-understood and most-mapped-out chapter in the BoM by faithful LDS.

Go, Zenos, Go!!

-=-=-=

"Elaborate details?" "No one could understand..." In direct contrast to comments by cinepro, Jaybear, and structurecop. So, is it as Dan says, or as cinepro et. al. say?

Then the bigger question: was JS bright, or not? Ah, I'm getting dizzy on this see-saw...

[ed2276]

Olvies are stupid. I think that covers it.

I have to also ask , "Was it a true olive , a historical olive or an allegorical olive?".

[RhipSaw2]

That's what I get for skimming, thanks Grego.

I guess Dan might need to edit his book.

[Dan Vogel]

RhipSaw2 wrote: Who's right here?

You might, I think, have missed this part:

IOW, what seems to be an error at first, is actually a strong support.

-=-=-=

As a matter of fact, just this year Jacob 5 was voted #1 easiest-understood and most-mapped-out chapter in the BoM by faithful LDS.

Go, Zenos, Go!!

-=-=-=

"Elaborate details?" "No one could understand..." In direct contrast to comments by cinepro, Jaybear, and structurecop. So, is it as Dan says, or as cinepro et. al. say?

Then the bigger question: was JS bright, or not? Ah, I'm getting dizzy on this see-saw...

Strong support? This thread began boasting how accurate Jacob 5 conformed to olive culture. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[grego]

Again:

You might, I think, have missed this part:

QUOTE

And it's all accurate down to the last detailâ??with one notable exception. And that is that in the account in Jacob 5, it said that graftings from wild olive treesâ??or little pieces of wild olive treeâ??are grafted into the main olive tree, the domesticated olive tree, and then they produce tame fruit. Now, that doesn't happen. A wild olive branch, even if grafted into a tame olive tree, will still produce wild fruit. It will survive, but it won't produce tame fruit simply because it's grafted into a tame olive tree. So, is this an error on the part of the Book of Mormon? No, not really.

One of the articlesâ??and article that I was involved withâ??in this book on Jacob 5 uncovered evidence that in the ancient Mediterranean world, they were aware of the possibility that miraculously, a wild olive branch grafted into a tame olive tree could produce tame fruit. It doesn't happen naturally, but it can happen miraculously. And the prophetic figures of the ancient Mediterranean, specifically Greek thinkers and so on, saw this as a sign from God. It was a miraculous intervention from God, something that contravened the normal laws of olive cultivation and production.

Well, what does it stand for in the account of the Book of Mormon? It stands for the conversion of Gentiles into people of the house of Israel. It's a miraculous transformation, exactly what the Book of Mormon would have it be. And this is a remarkable thing.

IOW, what seems to be an error at first, is actually a strong support.

[Nevo]

Apart from the problems mentioned by cinepro, Dan Vogel, and others, it seems to me that the literary genre is wrong for the time period ("sometime between 1600 and 600 B.C."). I don't think extended allegories of salvation history really show up until after the turn of the era. And I'm not sure that Jacob 5 even has a parallel even among later Christian and rabbinic parables.

[grego]

Apart from the problems mentioned by cinepro, Dan Vogel, and others,

Which problems were those? The contradictory ones?

[spinner]

RhipSaw2 wrote: Who's right here?

You might, I think, have missed this part:

And it's all accurate down to the last detailâ??with one notable exception. And that is that in the account in Jacob 5, it said that graftings from wild olive treesâ??or little pieces of wild olive treeâ??are grafted into the main olive tree, the domesticated olive tree, and then they produce tame fruit. Now, that doesn't happen. A wild olive branch, even if grafted into a tame olive tree, will still produce wild fruit. It will survive, but it won't produce tame fruit simply because it's grafted into a tame olive tree. So, is this an error on the part of the Book of Mormon? No, not really.

One of the articlesâ??and article that I was involved withâ??in this book on Jacob 5 uncovered evidence that in the ancient Mediterranean world, they were aware of the possibility that miraculously, a wild olive branch grafted into a tame olive tree could produce tame fruit. It doesn't happen naturally, but it can happen miraculously. And the prophetic figures of the ancient Mediterranean, specifically Greek thinkers and so on, saw this as a sign from God. It was a miraculous intervention from God, something that contravened the normal laws of olive cultivation and production.

Well, what does it stand for in the account of the Book of Mormon? It stands for the conversion of Gentiles into people of the house of Israel. It's a miraculous transformation, exactly what the Book of Mormon would have it be. And this is a remarkable thing.

IOW, what seems to be an error at first, is actually a strong support.

I don't think this is necessarily the 'strong support' you are proclaiming. Since the author of the article sometimes participates in these threads, perhaps he can clarify, but here is how I read it: he says that "some prophetic figures of the ancient Mediterranean, specifically Greek thinkers and so on..." There are too many vagaries in this statement for me or you to call it a 'strong support.' Specifically, which Greek thinkers said this? When did they say it? An Athenian Greek writing in 250 AD could well be characterized as "an ancient Greek thinker", but his world was so far removed from that of a devout Jew from Jerusalem living in 600 BC that they may as well have existed on different planets. Given the divsity of times and places that could fall under the title "ancient Mediterannean', an ancient Greek espousing a certain idea does not prove (or even lend very strong evidence suggesting) that the same counterfactual idea had any traction for Hebrews of Jacob's era.

Again, as the author of the article is here, I would be interested in his input on the exact nature of this evidence; it very well may be quite persuasive. I am merely saying the the paragraph, as written, does not seem like "strong proof" at all but more like a "partial deflection of criticism."