consiglieri Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 As I continue to plumb the depths of the structure of the account of Jesus' ministry to the Nephites recorded in 3 Nephi 11-28, something else has come to mind that I would like to put out here for discussion.It has long been recognized that Jesus takes three chapters (3 Nephi 12-14) to teach the Nephites what amounts to the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5-7.A lot of time has been spent discussing what exactly the Sermon on the Mount is doing in the Book of Mormon. My goal in this thread is not to rehash that, but to simply take it for granted that it is there because . . . well . . . it is.What I wish to examine is the proposition that the Sermon on the Mount is not simply dropped into the Book of Mormon where it sits like a monolith of New Testament material, but that in fact the Sermon is integrated throughout the Savior's teachings to the Nephites.In other words, this is another thread dealing with the structure of the account of Jesus' visit to the Nephites.I went through 3 Nephi last night and counted no less than 15 places in Jesus' teachings where the Sermon is referenced or quoted.1. 3 Nephi 12:13 is quoted and applied in 3 Nephi 16:152. 3 Nephi 12:14 is quoted and applied in 3 Nephi 15:123. 3 Nephi 12:16 is referenced in 3 Nephi 18:244. 3 Nephi 12:17 is referenced in 3 Nephi 15:65. 3 Nephi 12:18 is referenced in 3 Nephi 15:4-56. 3 Nephi 12:19 is referenced in 3 Nephi 15:9-107. 3 Nephi 12:47 is referenced in 3 Nephi 15:2-38. 3 Nephi 12:48 is referenced in 3 Nephi 27:279. 3 Nephi 13:7 is referenced in 3 Nephi 19:2410. 3 Nephi 13:9 is referenced in 3 Nephi 18:1611. 3 Nephi 14:8 is referenced in 3 Nephi 18:2012. 3 Nephi 14:8 is referenced in 3 Nephi 27:2913. 3 Nephi 14:13-14 is referenced in 3 Nephi 27:3314. 3 Nephi 14:24 is referenced in 3 Nephi 11:4015. 3 Nephi 14:24-26 is referenced in 3 Nephi 18:12-13I compiled this list late last night (and actually saw another one as I was typing this out), so I may have missed some, and would be interested in hearing if others see connections I have missed.But with just this list, it seems that the Sermon given in 3 Nephi 12-14 literally permeates the balance of the Savior's teachings to the Nephites.In other words, it is much more than just space filler; but is an integral part of the entire account.Number 14 is of especial interest because the Sermon is actually referenced in chapter 11 before the Sermon is recorded.Once again, the account of the Savior's visit to the Nephites is demonstrating remarkable evidence of being a highly structured narrative.Any thoughts?All the Best!--Consiglieri
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I'd say this is another interesting item that no one (to my knowledge) has ever pointed out before. You ought to pass it along to people on the "inside" and see if it can't find a place in Insights or something like that.
consiglieri Posted October 30, 2008 Author Posted October 30, 2008 I'd say this is another interesting item that no one (to my knowledge) has ever pointed out before. You ought to pass it along to people on the "inside" and see if it can't find a place in Insights or something like that.Ha!Wait till you see what I have in store for Malachi 3 and 4 in 3 Nephi!Seriously, though, thank you for your kind words.All the Best!--Consiglieri
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Ha!Wait till you see what I have in store for Malachi 3 and 4 in 3 Nephi!I'll look forward to that because the Malachi chapters are quite puzzling, I think.
Scottie Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them. 12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the aknowledge of the fulness of my gospel. 13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel. 14 And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father. 15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.Quick question...I was reading these passages and noticed something. At this point, IIRC, the Lamanites and Nephites are mixed into one happy group of people. Is this group still considered one of the lost Houses of Israel? Or is Jesus talking about those in the Old World?Also, just my opinion, but when I read these couple of verses, it makes me wonder how people see the BoM as a masterpiece of literature. This reads so sophmoric. Something that an "uneducated farmboy" might say when telling a story that he wanted to sound like the Bible. Six "Oh house of Israel"'s?? If I were abridging plates, I think I might take a couple of these out.
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Also, just my opinion, but when I read these couple of verses, it makes me wonder how people see the BoM as a masterpiece of literature. This reads so sophmoric. Something that an "uneducated farmboy" might say when telling a story that he wanted to sound like the Bible. Six "Oh house of Israel"'s?? If I were abridging plates, I think I might take a couple of these out.That's because you're from American Fork, UT and not from the ancient Hebrew world.
Rommelator Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 That's because you're from American Fork, UT and not from the ancient Hebrew world.He's right, Scottie. Ancient Hebrew authors regularly used repetition in their compositions. Donald W. Parry discussed this in the introduction of his excellent book Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon. I believe the technical term is called Regular Repetitions or something like that.After looking through some of my texts, I discovered that it is John Tvedtnes and David Bokovoy who have noted the Repetitive Resumption in the Book of Mormon in pages 117-131 in their book Testaments: Links Between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible.So to modern readers, this does seem clunky and "sophomoric". But it certainly would not have been so to an ancient Semite.
Scottie Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Perhaps. But would it fit what uneducated farmboy might say when telling a story that he wanted to sound like the Bible?To put it another way, if I read something that sounds sophmoric, couldn't that simply mean that it is sophmoric?
Rommelator Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 To put it another way, if I read something that sounds sophmoric, couldn't that simply mean that it is sophmoric?Perhaps. I think you would agree that evaluating liturature is highly subjective.But, IMO, to criticize the Book of Mormon because it is too repetitive would be akin to me criticizing Shakespeare because he was too formal.
consiglieri Posted October 30, 2008 Author Posted October 30, 2008 I'll look forward to that because the Malachi chapters are quite puzzling, I think.Fries are up!
Scottie Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Perhaps. I think you would agree that evaluating liturature is highly subjective.But, IMO, to criticize the Book of Mormon because it is too repetitive would be akin to me criticizing Shakespeare because he was too formal.Well, this is just one example. There are many more examples that when I read them, it just sounds like a farmboy making up a story. And, yes, it is highly subjective.Anyways...apologies, Consig for derailing... I've done enough of that in your threads this week.
Rommelator Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 the Sermon is integrated throughout the Savior's teachings to the Nephites.John Welch has argued that the reason Jesus taught the Nephites the Sermon on the Mount was because there is Temple rich symbolism in that Sermon and that this would make a connection with the Nephites, who were at the Temple in Bountiful when Jesus appeared. He has a pretty convincing argument, in my opinion, and has more on the subject coming out. I agree with you and Welch that the Sermon on the Mount material is more than just simply copying of Matthew by Joseph Smith, but a highly integrated and tactical move by the Savior to teach the Nephites his Gospel in a way they would understand. Namely, via temple symbolism.He has written a book on the subject and is working on another one as of earlier this month when he told me at Olivewood Bookstore.
Lightbearer Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Perhaps. But would it fit what uneducated farmboy might say when telling a story that he wanted to sound like the Bible?To put it another way, if I read something that sounds sophmoric, couldn't that simply mean that it is sophmoric?Or perhaps it just means that you are sophmoric? Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Mighty Curelom Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 I'm sorry, but I don't see how this amounts to a "plus" for LDS apologia. From a materialistic perspective, one would expect the author of the BoM (ie, Joseph Smith) would be more familiar with certain parts of the Bible than others, and that these favored parts would find their way into his writing. The fact that Joseph included the sermon on the mount in its entirety is evidence that this is one of those favored parts of the Bible. Thus, it's no surprise that there are multiple allusions to the sermon on the mount scattered throughout the text. I'd be willing to bet that the same phenomenon would be apparent with the Isaiah bits of the BoM. That is, it's obvious that Joseph really liked Isaiah--so much that he essentially copied entire chapters into his Book of Mormon work. So I wouldn't be surprised if certain phrases or concepts from the Isaiah chapters could be found scattered through the entire BoM. But again, I'd just like to reiterate a point that I and others have made recently with respect to BoM complexity: ancient writers didn't follow the draft-revision-repeat model of writing that you learn in high school. They dictated it off the top of their head and someone wrote down their words. No revision, no outline, no pre-planning. The methods that ancient people used were the same as those that skeptics ascribe to Joseph. If the complexity apologists claim exists in the BoM could be attained by an uneducated sheepherder living circa 300BC, then such complexity could be achieved by Joseph Smith using identical production methods. Also, Joseph's education level is irrelevant. No level of education is required to speak and make up stories. Since the stories Joseph invented were set in a historical period about which little (if anything) was known, he was free to make up pretty much anything. He didn't need an education to be historically accurate with his characters, because at the time there was little information one way or the other about ancient peoples. And it turns out that the common, folk knowledge about ancient Americans (that they were the descendants of Hebrews) found its way into the BoM, even though this folk knowledge turned out to be completely wrong.
jana at jade house Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Maybe I am just not understanding the question, but why would Jesus NOT repeat the instruction of the Beatitudes to the Nephites? The NT Matthew version was preached to disciples--and Apostles. The BoM 3 Nephi version was preached to disciples--and Apostles. Both are a primer on the mindset of a true follower of Christ. It is consistent that Jesus would give the same instruction...eternal teachings bear repeating. Or is that not what you are questioning? In my opinion, if we just studied the great sermon of King Benjamin and the Sermon(s) on the Mount we would have enough material to ponder for a lifetime.
Lamanite Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 What really tripped me out was John Welch's comparative study of the two accounts as a temple text.Big UP!Lamanite
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.