Is The Scribalization Of Prophecy In The Book Of Mormon Anachronistic?

[Nevo]

On another thread Sargon wrote: "The task of [Old Testament] scholars is to provide for us a picture of what ancient Israel was like. When they do this we quickly see that traditional understandings were wrong, and that modern ones often parallel LDS beliefs. Can the same be said of any other faith?"

Well, here is a counter-example. I am interested to find out how those here who take critical biblical scholarship seriously respond to this statement from a highly regarded OT scholar:

The Book of Jeremiah is paradigmatic of the books that the Bible attributes to pre-exilic prophets: the prophets who gave their names to the books wrote neither those books nor the oracles they contain; the Neviim are the work of scribes. The scribes who composed the books used written records based on the recollections of partisans and supporters of the prophets; separate oracles existed in written form before the collections took shape....Working with written sources of various kinds, the composers of the prophetic books expanded the prophetic materials by a process of relecture, creative citation, and appropriation of written oracles from anonymous prophets.

By the early exilic period, written oracle collections had become an established phenomenon with the literate elite of the Jews; as a result, the authority of the prophets became a scriptural authority. This development would have several consequences, one of which was the "scribalization" of prophecy. Once prophecy had become a written genre, new prophets employed writing as the principal means of disseminating their ideas. The anonymous individual known as Deutero-Isaiah is likely to have been a prophet of the new stamp: he wrote his message, instead of preaching it in the streets. In the late Persian and the early Hellenistic periods, the posthumous transformation of prophets into writers was complete; those wishing to emulate the prophets, such as the author of the visions of Daniel (Dan 7-12), presented their work as scribal activity.

-- Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 203.

In the Book of Mormon, of course, writing prophets abound. This is consistent with Joseph Smith's idea that prophets wrote "books" (Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, et al. all kept written records), but it doesn't seem to fit the Book of Mormon's alleged pre-exilic context. Or was Lehi a scribe? (If so, how did he become a wealthy merchant, and Nephi a metallurgist?)

As a sidenote, do we find the Book of Mormon's obsession with record-keeping, with its detailed history of transmission, in any other ancient writings?

[SolarPowered]

Or was Lehi a scribe? (If so, how did he become a wealthy merchant, and Nephi a metallurgist?)

Wait a minute... since when was Lehi a "wealthy merchant"? Evidently he was reasonably wealthy given the riches they brought to Laban, but where in the BoM does it establish that Lehi was a merchant?

[urroner]

Wait a minute... since when was Lehi a "wealthy merchant"? Evidently he was reasonably wealthy given the riches they brought to Laban, but where in the BoM does it establish that Lehi was a merchant?

I don't think that anywhere in the BofM does it state that Lehi was a merchant, but there is some evidence that he was a merchant, possibly even a middle-class metalworker in precious metals. This is all speculative, but it is based on some good evidence.

Lehi's House at Jerusalem and the Land of His Inheritance by Jeffrey R. Chadwick in the book Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem

Expertise in smithing precious metals such as silver and gold, particularly in smithing iron and hardening it into steel, is not something a person picked up as a hobby or sideline skill. Smithing, and in particular iron and steel smithing, was the high-tech profession of Lehi's dayâ??the period that archaeologists call Iron Age II. Evidence of Lehi's and Nephi's expertise in all sorts of metalsâ??in other words, evidence that smithing was their professionâ??is found in several passages of Nephi's writings. A convenient list of ten such passages may be considered:

1. 1 Nephi 2:1. Lehi left behind gold and silver, two precious metals likely to have been used in expert jewelry smithing. While the population at large often utilized silver as money, in the form of cut pieces and small jewelry (no coins were in use in Judah during Iron Age II), to possess gold was very rareâ??gold was not used as a medium of common monetary exchange. For Lehi to possess both gold and silver suggests that he worked with gold, which in turn suggests gold smithing (gold and silver are also mentioned in 1 Nephi 3:16, 22, and 24).

2. 1 Nephi 4:9. Nephi's evaluation of the sword of Laban includes his assessment that the hilt was of pure gold. This suggests that, at his young age, he was experienced in gold working (nonexperts are rarely able to judge the purity or content of gold-colored metal). He also mentioned the blade of the sword as being of "the most precious steel" and said that "the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine," assessments that suggest he was experienced in iron and steel work (see fig. 11).

3. 1 Nephi 5:19. Lehi predicts that the "plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time"â??a surprisingly accurate statement that could probably be made only by a person experienced with the properties of copper-based alloys like bronze and brass (bronze is a combination of copper and tin, and brass a combination of copper and zinc). Whereas iron, the hardest metal of Lehi's day (it could even be hardened into steel by Lehi's time), will oxidize and rust away over time if neglected, copper alloys such as bronze and brass will not. Even the most damp conditions will not cause plates of copper to "perish." And while it is possible over time for bronze or brass items to be "dimmed . . . by time" with a greenish or greyish patina, even minimal maintenance on a regular basis would prevent this.

4. 1 Nephi 8:19. Lehi "beheld a rod of iron" (see 1 Nephi 8:24 and 30). It is noteworthy that no other artificial object in his dream is described with such specificity. He does not, for example, mention the material from which the large building was constructed. That he actually noted what specific metal the rod was made of, rather than just calling it a rod or handrail, suggests that Lehi was especially sensitive to or interested in metals, as a smith would naturally be.

5. 1 Nephi 16:10. Nephi describes what eventually became known as the Liahona (see Alma 37:38). He notes that it was made of "fine brass" and was of "curious workmanship." These are the types of assessments that one who has experience with quality brass work, such as a smith, would make.

6. 1 Nephi 17:9â??16. Nephi knew how to smelt metallic ore from rock and forge tools with the metal made from the ore. This is obvious evidence that he was skilled in all aspects of the metallurgical knowledge of the period. Note that Nephi does not know how to work with wood or how to design a seagoing vesselâ??these skills are taught him by God (see 1 Nephi 18:1â??2)â??but he does know, without divine tutorial, how to work in metal and forge tools, indicating it was a previously mastered skill.

7. 1 Nephi 18:25. On arrival in ancient America, Lehi's party found "all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper." The inclusion of these items in their assessment of resources available to them indicates not only their value but implies the ability to use them in metalworking.

8. 1 Nephi 19:1. Nephi made "plates of ore" and lists the various records that he had "engraven" upon themâ??in other words, Nephi was experienced not only in ore smelting and metalworking but also in engraving long texts on the metal he worked.

9. 2 Nephi 5:15. Nephi taught his people to erect buildings and work wood, using only general terms for those activities, but then he reports specifically each type of metal he taught them to work inâ??iron, copper, brass, steel, gold, silver, and other precious ores. Not only does this clearly indicate that Nephi himself is a metalsmith but serves as something of a resum

[LeSellers]

In the Book of Mormon, of course, writing prophets abound.

I disagree for several reasons, not least of which is this passage:

And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

You might have said "prophets who write", rather than "writing prophets", as you did. It is apparent that Nephi was not alone in his lament that his writing was not as powerful as his speaking/preaching. Furthermore, even if we were to falsely assume that these prophets were better writers than speakers, you ignore the fact that most of the writing on (especially, but not exclusively) Gospel topics is transcriptions of speeches, e.g., King Benjamin, Lehi's dream, Alma and Amulek to the Zoramites.

This is consistent with Joseph Smith's idea that prophets wrote "books" (Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, et al. all kept written records), but it doesn't seem to fit the Book of Mormon's alleged pre-exilic context.

You may see it as "Joseph Smith idea", but that does not mean it was "Joseph's" idea.

As to whether prophets wrote their own books, the article you cite is evidence, not of an established pre-exile genre of scripture, but of historians' editing the earlier writings of the prophets. We should be grateful they got as much right as they did, since the evidence is that they were motivated by internal, ecclesiastical politics.

Or was Lehi a scribe?

It depends, I suppose, on what a "scribe" is. If it is one who writes, as noted above, a fairly rare skill in most ancient cultures, then Lehi most assuredly was a scribe. If it was a specific "vocation" or profession, then probably not. Nonetheless, the idea you advance, that only scribes wrote scripture undermines the entire concept of prophetic writing in the first place.

As a sidenote, do we find the Book of Mormon's obsession with record-keeping, with its detailed history of transmission, in any other ancient writings?

Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.

... Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation ... Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations

Lehi

[Nevo]

Wait a minute... since when was Lehi a "wealthy merchant"? Evidently he was reasonably wealthy given the riches they brought to Laban, but where in the BoM does it establish that Lehi was a merchant?

Hugh Nibley believed that Lehi was a merchant. "There are many indications in the book of 1 Nephi that Lehi was a merchant," he wrote in An Approach to the Book of Mormon. Another theory is that he was a metallurgist, as urroner notes above (see, e.g., John Tvedtnes, "Was Lehi a Caravaneer?" in The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999), 94â??97).

[Nevo]

You might have said "prophets who write", rather than "writing prophets", as you did.

Either one works. They mean the same thing.

It is apparent that Nephi was not alone in his lament that his writing was not as powerful as his speaking/preaching.

That's true. Moroni and Joseph Smith had the same complaint.

You may see it as "Joseph Smith idea", but that does not mean it was "Joseph's" idea.

Fair enough.

As to whether prophets wrote their own books, the article you cite is evidence, not of an established pre-exile genre of scripture, but of historians' editing the earlier writings of the prophets.

No, the passage I quoted isn't talking about historians editing earlier writings of the prophets. The point is that there were no "earlier writings of the prophets." The prophets delivered oracles which were remembered and written down by their disciples. Later, scribes collected these written oracles and composed "books," adding their own interpretations and expansions. According to van der Toorn, the final compositions of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah "reflect the involvement of generations of scribes" (van der Toorn, 7).

It depends, I suppose, on what a "scribe" is. If it is one who writes, as noted above, a fairly rare skill in most ancient cultures, then Lehi most assuredly was a scribe. If it was a specific "vocation" or profession, then probably not.

Van der Toorn is referring to professional scribes--not simply copyists, but men who were skilled in literary production.

Nonetheless, the idea you advance, that only scribes wrote scripture undermines the entire concept of prophetic writing in the first place.

Yes, I know. That is why I thought some of the more scholarly apologists here might want to take a stab at it.

[LeSellers]

In the Book of Mormon, of course, writing prophets abound.

You might have said "prophets who write", rather than "writing prophets", as you did.

Either one works. They mean the same thing.

Not quite.

"Writing prophets", as you and your article used the phrase, means people who wrote primarily as their way of promulgating their message. "Prophets who write", at least as I intended the term, meant prophets (a word that means, at its heart, one who speaks) who also wrote their messages, perhaps following the pronouncement.

This distinction is fundamental to the argument because it lets us see the prophets as prophets, not scribes, prophets who actually did the job of prophet: preaching, but who used their literary skills to record their speeches.

It may well be that Isaiah, for instance, "polished" his prophecies when he recorded them. I don't know if anyone actually speaks in the same flowery language (Isaiah was a poet-prophet, at least in his written works) that we read in his book; it may very well be, since Hebrew is a poetic language, not a mechanical one. He may have sharpened the chiasmus and the verbiage, but I am certain that he delivered his remarks as just that: remarks. What we read may or may not be verbatim what the kings heard, but they surely heard the same message.

You know that Elijah, for instance, and Nathan, did not write any books that we have. But the last phrase is important: "books that we have." Who knows what they may have written, and who knows what we might learn when we do get their writings? We LDSs have some of the words of two Hebrew prophets, Zenock and Zenos, whose written works (whose existence, even) are unknown elsewhere. Why not Elijah, too, one day? We have more of the words Nahum, preserved on the Brass Plates, words not in the biblical book of his name. Are there more chapters than one of Obediah yet to be revealed?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Van der Toorn is referring to professional scribes--not simply copyists, but men who were skilled in literary production.

Lehi was not a "copyist", either. He was a writer, albeit one who wrote his own revelations from God, rather than writing down the words of long-past (and conveniently dead) men.

I see his usage of "scribe", as a profession, to be, quite harshly, nothing more than "copyist", since while they may have been altering the stories to their own ends, they were writing the stories of others, copying them, as it were. I have dozens of fairy tale books in my house (which seven now-grown children and 21 grand children read or are read to frequently). Some are original tales, e.g., Hans Christian Andersen, others are retellings. The "author" didn't write the story, he merely "adapted" it, by which we mean that he took an existing story and reworded it. I'd say that only makes him a copier, not an author.

Lehi

[Brant Gardner]

In the Book of Mormon, of course, writing prophets abound. This is consistent with Joseph Smith's idea that prophets wrote "books" (Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, et al. all kept written records), but it doesn't seem to fit the Book of Mormon's alleged pre-exilic context.

We have a skewed notion of what the actual history was because our text is specifically constructed by a single individual living 1000 years after the beginning of the Nephite record. What comes through in Mormon's history was that there was a royal record of the dealings of the kings. I doubt that there is much controversy that such a record was not unusual in the ancient world, and probably among the first of the public writings. The kings had the wherewithal to have the record kept.

Rather than Mormon's edited book, what the original texts are closest to is historical chronicles. They appear different because of Mormon's selections that obey very different rules and logic than the original preparation.

As a sidenote, do we find the Book of Mormon's obsession with record-keeping, with its detailed history of transmission, in any other ancient writings?

As with the emphasis on prophesy/doctrine, the emphasis on the history of transmission is similarly the result of a single man's approach to his task, Mormon was very meticulous in his interactions with his sources and left the eggshell of his methodology strewn through the text. In contrast, the 1 Nephi-Omni transmission information is pretty standard "I pass it to my son" lineage indication. That contrasts with the much more complex transmission information and structures of Mormon's text.

[SolarPowered]

Hugh Nibley believed that Lehi was a merchant. "There are many indications in the book of 1 Nephi that Lehi was a merchant," he wrote in An Approach to the Book of Mormon. Another theory is that he was a metallurgist, as urroner notes above (see, e.g., John Tvedtnes, "Was Lehi a Caravaneer?" in The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar (Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999), 94–97).

Yes, I am aware that Hugh Nibley jumped to the conclusion that Lehi was a merchant. I just don't see the evidence for it in the BoM.

The argument I've heard is, "Lehi had tents and camels, so obviously he was a merchant." So, what...? The Lord commanded Lehi to take is family and go into the wilderness. If his profession had been "stonemason", he would then have gone into the wilderness without tents and camels, just carrying a few things in his stonemason's apron? I don't think so. He would have gone down to his local REI and bought some tents, and then to Honest Abe's Used Camels and picked up a few camels that looked like they still had a few good furlongs left in them, and then headed into the wilderness. The fact that Lehi went into the wilderness properly prepared to go into the wilderness doesn't tell us anything, other than that Lehi was not so foolish as to go into the wilderness without adequate preparations. I just don't see the evidence for "merchant."

I do agree that there is very strong evidence that Nephi was a metalworker. It is plausible that he had learned his father's trade, so Lehi might have been a metalworker, as well. Though, here again, I don't see much evidence for that, although the presence of gold and silver in Lehi's estate does give some support for that possibility.

[LeSellers]

Yes, I am aware that Hugh Nibley jumped to the conclusion that Lehi was a merchant. I just don't see the evidence for it in the BoM.

To say that Brother Nibley "jumped to the conclusion" about anything is hyperbole. He laid out his argument in detail, and it was masterful. Whether one agrees or not, it was not a hasty ratiocination.

Lehi

[charity's child]

I have a question. Aside from Nephi and his succession of handing the plates to his brother and on down the family line, what evidence have we that any of the books in the Book of Mormon were actually written by the prophets? Alma the Elder wrote about Abinadi, but did he write his own words as well? Not that I've noticed. And who wrote the words of Alma the Younger? How can we know? Everything from Mosiah onward came through the abridgement of Mormon and Moroni. And we can expect them to have written their own books, becaue they were, after all, writers by calling.

So where is this contradictory pattern you speak of?

[Nevo]

I have a question. Aside from Nephi and his succession of handing the plates to his brother and on down the family line, what evidence have we that any of the books in the Book of Mormon were actually written by the prophets? Alma the Elder wrote about Abinadi, but did he write his own words as well? Not that I've noticed. And who wrote the words of Alma the Younger? How can we know? Everything from Mosiah onward came through the abridgement of Mormon and Moroni. And we can expect them to have written their own books, becaue they were, after all, writers by calling.

So where is this contradictory pattern you speak of?

Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob, for example, all wrote "books." Lehi called his record "The Book of Lehi," Nephi called his "The Book of Nephi," and so on. This doesn't really fit a pre-exilic context, since the "scribalization of prophecy" appears to have been an exilic and post-exilic development.

That said, I have to admit that the writings of Book of Mormon prophets bear little resemblance to the purported "writings" of biblical prophets. Rather than a collection of oracles, they tend to take the form of chronicles emphasizing sacred history.

Still, it is striking how many Book of Mormon prophets also engaged in scribal activity: Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Alma II, Helaman and sons, Nephi III and IV, Mormon, Moroni, and even the Jaredite prophet Ether, all produced written records.

[CE Digger]

Yah! As if people who lived 2000 years ago would have the ability to write! C'mon!

[Nevo]

Yah! As if people who lived 2000 years ago would have the ability to write! C'mon!

The point is that prophets living in Israel some 2,600-2,700 years ago didn't, as a rule, produce lengthy written texts (such as we find in the Book of Mormon).

[Brant Gardner]

The point is that prophets living in Israel some 2,600-2,700 years ago didn't, as a rule, produce lengthy written texts (such as we find in the Book of Mormon).

Nor did they in the Book of Mormon. Lehi writes a family account. Nephi writes (at first) a royal history (with pretty good ANE precedent). Only when specifically required to do so does he create the secondary account, which fades in interest and volume with subsequent writers. As a lineage history, there is precedence (as well as with the disinclination to keep it up).

Of course Mormon is a special case. His sources were royal documents (again with firm precedence).

[Nevo]

Nor did they in the Book of Mormon. Lehi writes a family account. Nephi writes (at first) a royal history (with pretty good ANE precedent). Only when specifically required to do so does he create the secondary account, which fades in interest and volume with subsequent writers. As a lineage history, there is precedence (as well as with the disinclination to keep it up).

Well, the English translation of Mormon's abridgment (!) of Lehi's record apparently ran over one hundred manuscript pages, so I'd say it qualifies as "lengthy." According to Nephi, Lehi's record contained "many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children" (1 Nephi 1:16). Kent Brown has argued that 1 Nephi 1:4-15 preserves the opening of Lehi's book, since "as a matter of custom, ancient prophets introduced an account of their divine callings near the beginning of their record, coupling it with a colophon about the year of the reign of the local king" (S. Kent Brown, From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998], 30). So Lehi does appear to be writing a prophetic "book" of sorts.

[Bernard Gui]

The point is that prophets living in Israel some 2,600-2,700 years ago didn't, as a rule, produce lengthy written texts (such as we find in the Book of Mormon).

But the stated purpose of the Book of Mormon writers and its editor was to preserve a record of their

words for distant generations of Jews, Gentiles, believers and non-believers,

as well as for their own descendants. Instructions and prophecies given to their contemporaries were also

meant to provide important information for later readers. I believe this differs from the

objectives of the scribes/writers/prophets of the OT.

Since Lehi and Jeremiah were contemporaries, the Lehites could be considered early exhilic Israelites.

Perhaps the change you highlighted was under way before Lehi departed, and he and his people

carried it with them to the New World.

Bernard

[consiglieri]

The point is that prophets living in Israel some 2,600-2,700 years ago didn't, as a rule, produce lengthy written texts (such as we find in the Book of Mormon).

Hi, Nevo.

I would not consider myself a scholar in this arena, but wondered whether the scholar you cited in the OP who discussed Jeremiah dealt with the issue of his purported scribe, Baruch. (I would think he would have to deal with that.)

Here, if the Book of Jeremiah is accepted at face value, we would have a prophet (Jeremiah) receiving oracles which were written down by a contemporaneous scribe (Baruch), rather than a scribe living some time removed from Jeremiah.

I would suppose it possible that other OT prophets may have had their scribes (as did Joseph Smith) but that they simply went unmentioned in the text.

On the other hand, we could see Joseph Fielding Smith operating as a scribe of sorts in assembling and editing various teachings of Joseph Smith for publication in the book titled, "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." This occurred about 100-years after Joseph Smith's death and produced a book that could be equated as scripture; especially if we give it another 2,000 years of seasoning.

Does this have any bearing on the point you raise?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[charity's child]

Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob, for example, all wrote "books." Lehi called his record "The Book of Lehi," Nephi called his "The Book of Nephi," and so on. This doesn't really fit a pre-exilic context, since the "scribalization of prophecy" appears to have been an exilic and post-exilic development.

That said, I have to admit that the writings of Book of Mormon prophets bear little resemblance to the purported "writings" of biblical prophets. Rather than a collection of oracles, they tend to take the form of chronicles emphasizing sacred history.

Still, it is striking how many Book of Mormon prophets also engaged in scribal activity: Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Alma II, Helaman and sons, Nephi III and IV, Mormon, Moroni, and even the Jaredite prophet Ether, all produced written records.

Please quote chapter and verse that says Lehi wrote a book called the Book of Lehi, or that Alma II, Helaman, or the later Nephi wrote any records.

[Nevo]

I would not consider myself a scholar in this arena, but wondered whether the scholar you cited in the OP who discussed Jeremiah dealt with the issue of his purported scribe, Baruch. (I would think he would have to deal with that.)

Here, if the Book of Jeremiah is accepted at face value, we would have a prophet (Jeremiah) receiving oracles which were written down by a contemporaneous scribe (Baruch), rather than a scribe living some time removed from Jeremiah.

Van der Toorn thinks the historical accuracy of Jeremiah 36 (which recounts how Jeremiah dictated his collected oracles to the scribe Baruch in 605)

is "suspect." However, he agrees that "Baruch belonged to a wide circle of sympathizers of the prophet, many of whom were scribes by profession or belonged to the literate elite (p. 185), and that Baruch assumed the role of chronicler of the prophet. Van der Toorn suggests that Baruch wrote the oracles from memory, as well as drawing on oral tradition: "His scribal education had trained his powers of memorization, and it is quite possible that for much of what he wrote he could consult his own memory" (p. 186).

Van der Toorn concludes that: (1) the Book of Jeremiah is "a scribal composition, as opposed to prophetic memoir;" (2) "the core of the book is based on personal and collective memory;" and (3) "the scribes expanded the original Jeremiah collection with material associated with Jeremiah but not necessarily from him" (p. 188). The LXX and MT, for example, preserves two different redactions of Jeremiah.

But the stated purpose of the Book of Mormon writers and its editor was to preserve a record of their words for distant generations of Jews, Gentiles, believers and non-believers, as well as for their own descendants. Instructions and prophecies given to their contemporaries were also meant to provide important information for later readers. I believe this differs from the objectives of the scribes/writers/prophets of the OT.

You make a good point.

Van der Toorn actually addresses this in his book. Conceding that pre-exilic prophets wrote "on occasion," he notes that "their purpose in writing . . . was confined to communicating a message to their contemporaries. They resorted to the written word [e.g., Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in Jer. 29:1-3] when they judged an oral delivery less apt to reach their intended audience. Not a single time, though, did they write in view of preserving their words for future generations. Yet this was precisely the purpose of the prophetic collections as we know them from the Hebrew Bible. The books of the prophets were composed for an audience that would consult them after the prophets had gone" (p. 181-82). Van der Toorn hypothesizes that "the study of the prophets was a way of coming to terms with the national catastrophe [of the Babylonian exile]" (p. 175).

Since Lehi and Jeremiah were contemporaries, the Lehites could be considered early exhilic Israelites. Perhaps the change you highlighted was under way before Lehi departed, and he and his people carried it with them to the New World.

There is some support for this view in a recent book by William Schniedewind. He writes:

Before the late Judean monarchy, writing was a marginal phenomenon in ancient Israel. It served the royal court. It was used to keep temple records. It appeared in magic and had a role in the myths of creation. During the late Judean monarchy, writing became a mundane part of the social fabric. Knowledge was preserved and authority conferred by written texts. . . . Writing was no longer essentially a prerogative of the state, but it had spread to various non-scribal classes as well.

-- William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 111.

However, Schniedewind goes on to note that this rising literacy "was a mundane literacy that arose with the bureaucracy of the Judean economy" (p. 114) and that in many (most?) cases it may only have involved "the ability to read and write one's own name, to read and write receipts, and perhaps to read short letters" (p. 100). He notes that "public religious writing was also mundane: writing that was ordered to be placed on the doorposts of every Israelite family home (Deut 6:9; 11:20) or that was put on amulets to be worn around the neck" (p. 114).

So its perfectly plausible that Lehi was literate (ie: could read and write). But it is still exceptional that a lay prophet of that era (the late Judean monarchy) would have had the skill and inclination to compose lengthy written texts. But maybe he had different marching orders than Isaiah, Micah, Amos, and Hosea.

[Brant Gardner]

Well, the English translation of Mormon's abridgment (!) of Lehi's record apparently ran over one hundred manuscript pages, so I'd say it qualifies as "lengthy."

The book of Lehi and the record of Lehi are two different things (which Brown describes). Lehi wrote the record of Lehi. What was the book of Lehi in Mormon's text was the name of the first dynasty book, which Mormon edited down to 116 pages.

So Lehi does appear to be writing a prophetic "book" of sorts.

Lehi wrote a family history, if you will. There were certainly descriptions of his visions in it, but it was never preserved in any way that we know. What we know of it comes from Nephi's unusual second history, which has no other explanation than divine command.

[Nevo]

The book of Lehi and the record of Lehi are two different things (which Brown describes).

Brown uses "book" and "record" synonymously in the text (see p. 30, for example). But as you point out, he does describe the distinction between the book of Lehi and the record of Lehi in endnote 8. I'll make a point of reading the notes from now on.

I had no idea that the book of Lehi "was not written in any part by Lehi," so I appreciate the correction.

P.S. For any interested in Brown's reconstruction of the contents of the record of Lehi, see here.

[Brant Gardner]

I had no idea that the book of Lehi "was not written in any part by Lehi," so I appreciate the correction.

I daresay you are hardly alone! Most of us don't know much about that book at all. I second the suggestion that anyone interested read Brown on the subject.