And My Father Dwelt in a Tent

[volgadon]

I agree. The more I think about/learn about Nephi, the more I am convinced that he was very subtle and artistic in his references. I believe that there is a lot of intention in 1 Nephi (which dissolves in 2 Nephi, interestingly). 1 Nephi is a gem, though. I suspect that someday I would rewrite (again--it must be at least 4 times already) the commentary on 1 Nephi to highlight these connections that are being discovered as we learn to see the world more as he did.

Dead right. i was working just the other day on something showing just that, but I lost the post half-way through.

[volgadon]

I think Nibley got it right though it doesn't mean there isn't some greater spiritual symbolism involved.

Why I think Nibley was wrong in his assesment of them as Beduin goes beyond spiritual symbolism.

Lehi and Ishmael are desert names.

Actually, in the Hebrew Bible, Ishmael occurs with greater frequency among Judah and Levi than iit does the desert. A contemporary of Lehi's was Gedliah's assassin- Ishmael, a member of the royal house.

as for Lehi, I fear we might be stretching some near-cognates.

Their poetry and the way they travel is that of the Semitic desert peoples.

Poetry is a favourite topic of conversation among my many Arab friends and acquaintances. They pointed out a lot of differences between hebrew and arabic poetry, sadly, I never wrote them down. Some of the best poets in Arabic have been Jews, and arabic-speaking Jews were the greatest of Hebrew poets, but that is because they adapted Arabic stylisations and flourishes. I'm certainly not denigrating Hebrew poetry, but Nibley overstated the similarities.

Mode of travel? Judah was not famous for its camels, nor even for horses, and the former seem to have been fairly rare. of course the mode of travel was closer than ours is to theirs, but even so...

According to Nibley the tribe if Manasseh had the greatest connections to the desert out of all the tribes,

I'm not sure how Nibley arrived at that conclusion, because Mannaseh probably had less connections than, say, Reuben or Judah. The territory of Manasseh is not in the desert. They suffered from inroads and raids by desert nomads, but not more so than judah.

and the orginal Hebrews were people from the desert.

As David pointed out, many, many years before Lehi was born. Another thing is, not even in Arabia were all the inhabitants desert adepts. Yemenite towndwellers usually weren't.

[Brant Gardner]

First, the verses and chapters within the BoM were not arranged in any way we would recognize today. Perhaps the major books were organized as books, but IIRC the verses and even the very sentences were salvaged from the burning wreckage of the initial transcript.

That isn't the way the evidence would suggest. The book names and chapters (up to 1879 when they were changed) reflect the original plate text. What is absent is punctuation, so we don't have/can't have "original" paragraphs and sentences. That is not that big of a problem, and is actually the "correct" way it should have happened in a more ancient text, since punctuation is more modern.

What we do have, is indications that the text was controlled for thought units by verbal markers instead of punctuation ("and it came to pass", "and now", "now behold" are a few of them that function this way). Other controlling units are poetic parallels (chiasm and simpler forms) and structural/literary parallels. The "my father dwelt in a tent" seems to have this literary function in 1 Nephi.

I also believe that it is important to understand that 1 Nephi is an intentionally and purposefully crafted text, not an annal-type history. It was created so that the literary subthemes highlighted and supported the intent. All of this shifts in 2 Nephi. I do not believe that we see again any Book of Mormon writer so familiar with and literate with the stories of the Old Testament.

[volgadon]

volga, what is the connection between Noah as tamim and Noah as Tzaddiq? Is there practically a difference between the effect of the two terms?

I'm not sure of the exact nuances, pretty sure no one is, but i would say either righteous and blameless, or godly and perfect. Either way, it is a very flattering description.

Noah . . . Father Abraham . . . Jacob/Israel . . . Teacher Moses . . . Father Lehi, all, no doubt, were of a kind since all dwelt in tents, and all founded new nations in new lands. No doubt Nephi intended the connection. Filial duty of the true son (as Joseph was to Jacob), would no doubt require this. I agree that 1 Nephi is, at least in part, an apologia for Lehi, just as Genesis is an apologia for the Patriarchs, especially Abraham and Jacob (Shechem notwithstanding).

My personal suspicion is that Nephi cast himself as Moses and his father as Abraham, but with substantial allusions to Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

Are there parallel examples of which you're aware in the ANE or the secondary, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, or other literature of the righteous son undertaking this duty, either expressly or as unidentified but definitely present apologist?

Good question, I never really looked for it, so some research is in order. Goes without saying though that in the NE it is a filial duty to preserve the good reputation of your parents. The Decalogue a case in point.

[volgadon]

Brant, I really like your assesment of the verse as a unit marker. It has much the same function in Gen 25, closing off the the brief information about how the boys grew up. The next verse though providing biographical information, is about their parents' relationship to them.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

That isn't the way the evidence would suggest. The book names and chapters (up to 1879 when they were changed) reflect the original plate text. What is absent is punctuation, so we don't have/can't have "original" paragraphs and sentences. That is not that big of a problem, and is actually the "correct" way it should have happened in a more ancient text, since punctuation is more modern.

What we do have, is indications that the text was controlled for thought units by verbal markers instead of punctuation ("and it came to pass", "and now", "now behold" are a few of them that function this way). Other controlling units are poetic parallels (chiasm and simpler forms) and structural/literary parallels. The "my father dwelt in a tent" seems to have this literary function in 1 Nephi.

I also believe that it is important to understand that 1 Nephi is an intentionally and purposefully crafted text, not an annal-type history. It was created so that the literary subthemes highlighted and supported the intent. All of this shifts in 2 Nephi. I do not believe that we see again any Book of Mormon writer so familiar with and literate with the stories of the Old Testament.

I am happy that you seem to recognize the problem with assigning this selection of text as proof of authenticity. It is an interesting potential marker, as you say, and does seem to be out of place to the flow of the rest of the chapter. I could certainly see it as a mental period of some sort, put there to allow another idea to flow forward and demarcating sections. My point was simply that based on the lack of punctuation, as you put it, we cannot assume this is anything yet.

Still more interesting is the use of parallels to establish possible authenticity. Are you aware of any 'control' studies between aspects of the BoM and and another text, say Moby ****? It would be interesting to see if there are Melville Parallels as well.

I also find your implied thesis, of Nephi being the last Hebrew author, intriguing.

[volgadon]

My point was simply that based on the lack of punctuation, as you put it, we cannot assume this is anything yet.

Look at verse 16. "And it came to pass that..."

Wayehi ki in Biblical Hebrew introduces a new unit or passage. Especially in an oral context 9people rarely read quietly to themselves), that is punctuation.

Said passage is now about Nephi seeking for a witness from the Lord, it doesn't deal with the actions of his father.

[volgadon]

I am happy that you seem to recognize the problem with assigning this selection of text as proof of authenticity.

As the author of the OP, I certainly was not stating the passage was proof of authenticity. This thread takes authenticity as a given.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

As the author of the OP, I certainly was not stating the passage was proof of authenticity. This thread takes authenticity as a given.

I apologize for reading too much into the OP. If this is not a Hebraism, is it merely an interesting tidbit?

[volgadon]

I apologize for reading too much into the OP. If this is not a Hebraism, is it merely an interesting tidbit?

Hebraisms do not equal proof!

it is both an Hebraism and an interesting tidbidt, as well as a look at one of the purposes of 1 Nephi and its structure.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Hebraisms do not equal proof!

it is both an Hebraism and an interesting tidbidt, as well as a look at one of the purposes of 1 Nephi and its structure.

Very well, but I would hope you would accept a solid Hebraism as evidence for the authenticity of the BoM.

I agree that it is an interesting tidbit, but why do you accept it as a Hebraism? Would potential Hebraism be more accurate?

[Brant Gardner]

I am happy that you seem to recognize the problem with assigning this selection of text as proof of authenticity.

From what I have seen, of all those who promote aspects of the text as indications of its authenticity, I am the most reluctant to find anything that qualifies as proof, and I tend to accept fewer indications of authenticity than most. For example, I am not certain that I can accept any Hebraism on the vocabulary/grammar level as a proof. There are too many options for other explanations.

However, I do find the structural and cultural information very important in establishing the antiquity of the text. It behaves like an ancient text would rather than a modern one--even though the vocabulary and syntax are often 19th century.

My point was simply that based on the lack of punctuation, as you put it, we cannot assume this is anything yet.

If by anything you mean a proof, I agree. If, however, anything would be an elucidation of the text against an ancient background--then it can be that.

I don't know that we will ever see a proof for the Book of Mormon. I certainly expect that we will see it in a very rich interpretive structure that will allow believers to have a deeper understanding of the complexities of the text. That is very different from a proof, but (I believe) still quite valuable.

Still more interesting is the use of parallels to establish possible authenticity. Are you aware of any 'control' studies between aspects of the BoM and and another text, say Moby ****? It would be interesting to see if there are Melville Parallels as well.

In my opinion, that kind of analysis begins with the assumption that the only way to show that it is ancient is to show it to be different from some other modern text. Methodologically, that simply doesn't work. The renewed interest in chiasms should warn us that simply understanding a feature doesn't specifically mark antiquity.

Where we need to find the parallels (again, in my opinion--probably heavily weighted by the particular hammer I carry) is in the historical and cultural connections. Those are much more solid types of connections (when done correctly). They will tell us more than comparing the Book of Mormon to any other literature, because literature can easily replicate artistic structures, either explicitly or implicitly. Folklorists have discerned unconscious patterning in the way particular cultures like their tales told, and that patterning can even influence writers of non-fiction.

I also find your implied thesis, of Nephi being the last Hebrew author, intriguing.

I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but that makes for an interesting aspect of his writing. Of course, Jacob could have done the same, except he didn't. I suspect that there is either an element of talent in addition to the nature of the construction of their two texts that would tell us why.

[volgadon]

Very well, but I would hope you would accept a solid Hebraism as evidence for the authenticity of the BoM.

of course I do, but I look at them more in the light of what Brant said, that the text acts like an ancient text.

I agree that it is an interesting tidbit, but why do you accept it as a Hebraism? Would potential Hebraism be more accurate?

Because it is an example oof a narrative device used extensiively throughout the Bible, of using a phrase to allude back to an earlier story. The context is not too clear in English, but makes perfect sense in Hebrew, and most importantly, functions with a purpose.

[Spurven Ten Sing]

From what I have seen, of all those who promote aspects of the text as indications of its authenticity, I am the most reluctant to find anything that qualifies as proof, and I tend to accept fewer indications of authenticity than most. For example, I am not certain that I can accept any Hebraism on the vocabulary/grammar level as a proof. There are too many options for other explanations.

However, I do find the structural and cultural information very important in establishing the antiquity of the text. It behaves like an ancient text would rather than a modern one--even though the vocabulary and syntax are often 19th century.

I agree completely. Any text that could be taken seriously should have these pattern, or your better term 'behavior'. I would wonder, though, how much of this behavior could be mimicked. After several solid hours of readings in Melville, it is not inconceivable that any writing taking place right after would also behave like Melville. But, as you say, this is not proof of anything.

If by anything you mean a proof, I agree. If, however, anything would be an elucidation of the text against an ancient background--then it can be that.

I don't know that we will ever see a proof for the Book of Mormon. I certainly expect that we will see it in a very rich interpretive structure that will allow believers to have a deeper understanding of the complexities of the text. That is very different from a proof, but (I believe) still quite valuable.

Thank you for clarifying, I was being careless with my terms. Proof also seems to strong a term. Let's call it evidence. I feel it would be a shame if we never find that evidence buried somewhere within the text of the BoM, but you may be right. Sometimes one can be tempted into the deeper waters of evidence from the safer ones of textual nuance.

In my opinion, that kind of analysis begins with the assumption that the only way to show that it is ancient is to show it to be different from some other modern text. Methodologically, that simply doesn't work. The renewed interest in chiasms should warn us that simply understanding a feature doesn't specifically mark antiquity.

Where we need to find the parallels (again, in my opinion--probably heavily weighted by the particular hammer I carry) is in the historical and cultural connections. Those are much more solid types of connections (when done correctly). They will tell us more than comparing the Book of Mormon to any other literature, because literature can easily replicate artistic structures, either explicitly or implicitly. Folklorists have discerned unconscious patterning in the way particular cultures like their tales told, and that patterning can even influence writers of non-fiction.

For future reference, are there any places I could find a catalogue of potential Hebraism or patterns?

I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, but that makes for an interesting aspect of his writing. Of course, Jacob could have done the same, except he didn't. I suspect that there is either an element of talent in addition to the nature of the construction of their two texts that would tell us why.

But would Jacob be considered 'Hebrew' in this context? Wasn't he essentially raised in the wilderness? Wouldn'y he have already begun his New World education?

[Brant Gardner]

After several solid hours of readings in Melville, it is not inconceivable that any writing taking place right after would also behave like Melville. But, as you say, this is not proof of anything.

Quite right. That is why I am very hesitant to accept anything that suggests a Hebrew "original." First, the text says it isn't in Hebrew (though that has been interpreted as the writing system rather than the language by proponents) and the KJV mimics Hebraic style. Therefore, a text imitating the KJV would inherently display Hebraisms. I am aware of the better arguments for the Hebraisms (such as the if>and conditional) but I have specific reasons why I don't find them persuasive.

Let's call it evidence. I feel it would be a shame if we never find that evidence buried somewhere within the text of the BoM, but you may be right. Sometimes one can be tempted into the deeper waters of evidence from the safer ones of textual nuance.

Notice, however, that while I back away from proof, I don't back away from evidence. I do believe there is evidence. I just don't think literary evidence is sufficient to establish the necessary connection. Once we have a connection, then it becomes relevant as auxiliary evidence and amplification.

For future reference, are there any places I could find a catalogue of potential Hebraism or patterns?

Here are some:

E. Craig Bramwell, "Hebrew Idioms in the Small Plates of Nephi" (master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1960, rept 1989). Available online through BYU Library

Thomas W. Brookbank,

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Notice, however, that while I back away from proof, I don't back away from evidence. I do believe there is evidence. I just don't think literary evidence is sufficient to establish the necessary connection. Once we have a connection, then it becomes relevant as auxiliary evidence and amplification.

That makes perfect sense. I can tell I will look forward to your further points, Mr. Gardner. Thank you for the bibliography, I am copying it down for future research.

[David Bokovoy]

volga, what is the connection between Noah as tamim and Noah as Tzaddiq? Is there practically a difference between the effect of the two terms?

Noah . . . Father Abraham . . . Jacob/Israel . . . Teacher Moses . . . Father Lehi, all, no doubt, were of a kind since all dwelt in tents, and all founded new nations in new lands. No doubt Nephi intended the connection. Filial duty of the true son (as Joseph was to Jacob), would no doubt require this. I agree that 1 Nephi is, at least in part, an apologia for Lehi, just as Genesis is an apologia for the Patriarchs, especially Abraham and Jacob (Shechem notwithstanding).

Are there parallel examples of which you're aware in the ANE or the secondary, apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, or other literature of the righteous son undertaking this duty, either expressly or as unidentified but definitely present apologist?

I believe that there exists a difference in terms of spiritual progression. Note the word order in the description given concerning Noah in Genesis 6:9:

"Noah was a just man (sadiq) and perfect (tamim) in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

This account provides a three fold ascension in terms of progressive spirituality. Noah was "just," meaning "righteous," perfect meaning "blameless," and finally, enjoyed the unique privilege of walking with God. The Hebrew word "tamim" means literarily "blameless" and is used, for example, to describe the blameless/blemish free sacrifices presented to deity in the temple. From a spiritual perspective, tamim appears to link with what the D&C associates with the doctrine of justification. Righteousness prepares a person for obtaining the state of justification.

The idiom "walk with God" denotes an especially high level of intimacy. Most people are described and/or encouraged in the Bible to walk "before God."

This intensification in the description of Noah's righteousness reflects an important biblical literary device. For compassion, one could consider the description of Isaac in Genesis 22, which as some Rabbinic commentators observed, follows the same three fold literary ascent:

"Take now (1) thy son, (2) thine only son, (3) Isaac whom thou lovest" (Gen. 22:2)

The same technique appears in the Book of Mormon:

"And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had (1) cast out, and (2) stoned, and (3) slain" (1 Nephi 1:20)

[USU78]

I believe that there exists a difference in terms of spiritual progression. Note the word order in the description given concerning Noah in Genesis 6:9:

"Noah was a just man (sadiq) and perfect (tamim) in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

This account provides a three fold ascension in terms of progressive spirituality. Noah was "just," meaning "righteous," perfect meaning "blameless," and finally, enjoyed the unique privilege of walking with God. The Hebrew word "tamim" means literarily "blameless" and is used, for example, to describe the blameless/blemish free sacrifices presented to deity in the temple. From a spiritual perspective, tamim appears to link with what the D&C associates with the doctrine of justification. Righteousness prepares a person for obtaining the state of justification.

The idiom "walk with God" denotes an especially high level of intimacy. Most people are described and/or encouraged in the Bible to walk "before God."

This intensification in the description of Noah's righteousness reflects an important biblical literary device. For compassion, one could consider the description of Isaac in Genesis 22, which as some Rabbinic commentators observed, follows the same three fold literary ascent:

"Take now (1) thy son, (2) thine only son, (3) Isaac whom thou lovest" (Gen. 22:2)

The same technique appears in the Book of Mormon:

"And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had (1) cast out, and (2) stoned, and (3) slain" (1 Nephi 1:20)

The things I learn here. Thanks millefois!

[David Bokovoy]

The things I learn here. Thanks millefois!

It takes a smart man to ask the right questions!