The Fourth Son Shall be King

[consiglieri]

Ben McGuire has argued for an intertextual allusion between the Old Testament story of David and Goliath, and the Book of Mormon story of Nephi and Laban. Nephi and Goliath: A Case Study of Literary Allusion in the Book of Mormon, Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 16-31 (2009).

In his concluding paragraph, McGuire states:

In detailing exactly the process by which I justify this identification, I hope to encourage discussion and critical input. The Book of Mormon as a repository of intertextual material has not begun to be explored. It will take patience and significant effort to reexamine the text and to produce an exegesis that more closely resembles the intent of its authors. A study of the intertextuality of the Book of Mormon will help us not only find better meaning within the text, but also better understand the texts that the Book of Mormon authors reference in their writings.

This paper suggests an additional allusion between the Book of Mormon story of Nephi and the Old Testament story of David; that both seem to allude to an earlier story in Genesis where the first three sons of Jacob forfeit the right to rule, with the birthright landing on the fourth son, Judah.

The Book of Genesis is careful to spell out that the birthright of Jacob went to Judah, the fourth son of his first wife, Leah.

Leah had six sons in total, the first four being listed separately from the last two in time as well as in the text: (1) Reuben, (2) Simeon, (3) Levi, (4) Judah; [Gen. 29:32-35] and then (5) Issachar, (6) Zebulun [Gen. 30:17-20].

When it came time to bless his sons before he died, Jacob does not give the birthright to the firstborn, Reuben. (Gen. 49:3-4).

[volgadon]

I'm convinced that much of 1N is textual allusion. That is not to say it didn't happen, but Nephi brings certain elements to the fore. another bit worthy of mentioning in relation with David is 1N 3:7.

[Jeff K.]

If the cycle of people doing the same thing under the same circumstance throughout history is an intertextual allusian then history did not occur. Or perhaps we have too much time in our hands and when we see cycles of people doing the same thing under similar circumstances, we decide that such things are allusions rather than reality.

In detailing exactly the process by which I justify this identification, I hope to encourage discussion and critical input. The Book of Mormon as a repository of intertextual material has not begun to be explored. It will take patience and significant effort to reexamine the text and to produce an exegesis that more closely resembles the intent of its authors. A study of the intertextuality of the Book of Mormon will help us not only find better meaning within the text, but also better understand the texts that the Book of Mormon authors reference in their writings.

Not sure why the quote is here, it lends nothing to credibility, it only reflects the author's determination whethere he is right or wrong in his theory to push forward with his theory. Generally we seek the intent of authorship through study and prayer (but then prayer is soooo overrated and it is better to focus on presumed intent.

A study of intertextuality of the Book of Mormon might help us find better meaning, but then the Book of Mormon is a poor choice for documentation and historicity, unlike the Bible, which has a well known and documented cultural history by which to confirm or reaffirm cultural interpretations, this cannot be said of the Book of Mormon only because the cultures in question have long since disappeared, and the Book of Mormon, concerned more with scripture for today, with spirituality today, and not affirmation of a people and culture we know little about. One could suppose that perhaps the culture of Nephites and Lamanites in the Americas was relatively unchanged, but we know that would be incorrect, that the cultures did change (Lamanites certainly). So cultural references may mean distinct things (look to the wieghts and measures as an example). If cultural references change, it becomes dicey at best to presume some direct inference as being reflective of an earlier writing.

Perhaps the author sees what he wants to see and makes similar experiences under similar circumstances (which one might attribute to human nature) literary allusions rather than understanding that :sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

[mercyngrace]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend this week that might be a little relevant here since the comparison is based in the premise that Judah receives his father's favor.

The way this fellow explained it to me is roughly as follows:

Reuben fell out of favor and the rights of firstborn fell to the first son of the second wife. This is why the other brothers were complicit, led by Judah, in getting Joseph out of the way. The "coat of many colors" was garb symbolizing Joseph's right to the priesthood.

The entire story of Joseph being a foreshadowing of the atonement - Judah had to be willing in the end to sacrifice his life for his brother (Benjamin) as an act of true repentance for the harm he had caused his other brother (Joseph) in the same way we are required to lay down our stones against our fellowmen in order to receive mercy.

This interpretation puts Joseph squarely in the center as the favored son who bore the sins/burdens of his family and whose right it was to bestow forgiveness or create at-one-ment.

Daniel Ludlow explains the birthright passing to Joseph here.

[volgadon]

Textual allusions do not mean that an event did not happen. They are a device which biblical authors used in crafting their accounts. This device connects the story to other stories, and is a clever way of conveying certain messages. One needs to read between the lines though.

Anyway you have a valid point about culture changing, but this is Nephi we are talking about. This was part of HIS culture.

[volgadon]

Small correction, the birthright did not pass to the first-born of the second wife, it would pass to the next eldest. Simeon and Levi earned their father's deep and lasting displeasure by the slaughter at Shechem. Judah was the one to whom the birthright went, not Joseph.

[Senator]

Not sure why the quote is here, it lends nothing to credibility, it only reflects the author's determination whethere he is right or wrong in his theory to push forward with his theory. Generally we seek the intent of authorship through study and prayer (but then prayer is soooo overrated and it is better to focus on presumed intent.

Jeff, hold still for a moment.....I'm just going to reach up and flick that chip you have on your shoulder.

[mercyngrace]

Small correction, the birthright did not pass to the first-born of the second wife, it would pass to the next eldest. Simeon and Levi earned their father's deep and lasting displeasure by the slaughter at Shechem. Judah was the one to whom the birthright went, not Joseph.

In case you didn't click the link I provided, that concept is validated in the Ensign

Joseph and Reuben

As the firstborn son of the first wife, Reuben was the birthright son. When Reuben proved to be unworthy by committing adultery with Bilhah (see Gen. 35:21

[volgadon]

Sorry, you are right about the birthright being given to Joseph, I confused that with the leadership of the family, which went to Judah. That was anciently the most important aspect of the birthright anciently. Chronicles has a different twist on it, as it is written much later. OTOH, that the birthright would go to the firstborn of the second wife is simply not true as a general rule.

[volgadon]

Also, it is curious that the older brothers are dismissed for their sins but Judah gets the birthright in spite of his actions with Tamar???

The story of Tamar is presented positively in the Bible.

Reuben's sin was primarily that of trying to supplant his father, seize his power and become leader while Jacob was still alive.

Simeon and Levi rebelled against their father's way and blackened his reputation.

[consiglieri]

Reuben's sin was primarily that of trying to supplant his father, seize his power and become leader while Jacob was still alive.

And it seems likely that Reuben's sin was reflected by Absalom in publicly sleeping with his father's concubines.

But that would be another allusion, I suppose . . .

Does anybody here see a linguistic connection between Lehi and Leah, by the way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Not sure why the quote is here, it lends nothing to credibility, it only reflects the author's determination whethere he is right or wrong in his theory to push forward with his theory.

You are so going to get it when Ben shows up . . .

[volgadon]

And it seems likely that Reuben's sin was reflected by Absalom in publicly sleeping with his father's concubines.

But that would be another allusion, I suppose . . .

I wouldn't be surprised if it were also an allusion, that would just support the notion that one can allude without making things up. Sleeping with the leader's woman was a way of showing who really was boss.

Does anybody here see a linguistic connection between Lehi and Leah, by the way?

No. Different letters, different sounds.

[Jeff K.]

Textual allusions do not mean that an event did not happen. They are a device which biblical authors used in crafting their accounts. This device connects the story to other stories, and is a clever way of conveying certain messages. One needs to read between the lines though.

Anyway you have a valid point about culture changing, but this is Nephi we are talking about. This was part of HIS culture.

You are right, textual allusions may be indeed reflect actual evens with the foreshadowing having a much deeper meaning of an actual even, a prophesy writ large for later understanding. I can see that. Unfortunately sometimes I think the allusional reference is sometimes used as a tool by those who wish to undermine the Book of Mormon, there used to be (and still is) a group that continuously looks for acceptance of the idea that the Book of Mormon is no more than fanciful inspired writing. They have used allusions in the past in an attempt to make the point.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, hold still for a moment.....I'm just going to reach up and flick that chip you have on your shoulder.

Senator I have no chip on my shoulder. I simply look at the ramifications of statements. Do you presume that everyone who doesn't agree with you has a chip on their shoulder? Or are you desperate to somehow waste cyberspace? Add something besides your emotional outburst. Surprise me.

[Jeff K.]

And it seems likely that Reuben's sin was reflected by Absalom in publicly sleeping with his father's concubines.

But that would be another allusion, I suppose . . .

Does anybody here see a linguistic connection between Lehi and Leah, by the way?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Actually the correct context for Absalom and the concubines was rape. Which carried an even greater desecration than merely supplanting of authority, but actual humiliation of the authority itself. Was Reubens context in the same light?

[Jeff K.]

You are so going to get it when Ben shows up . . .

Ben who? I looked at the quote, it really doesn't say much. If anything, you should have used a better quotation, he should be upset that you chose his weakest statement to present before the forum.

[volgadon]

You are right, textual allusions may be indeed reflect actual evens with the foreshadowing having a much deeper meaning of an actual even, a prophesy writ large for later understanding. I can see that. Unfortunately sometimes I think the allusional reference is sometimes used as a tool by those who wish to undermine the Book of Mormon, there used to be (and still is) a group that continuously looks for acceptance of the idea that the Book of Mormon is no more than fanciful inspired writing. They have used allusions in the past in an attempt to make the point.

It is undeniable that there are many biblical allusions in the BoM, especially in 1st Nephi. one could argue that JS was ripping off the Bible, one could hold the position that this was a pious fraud, but I would rather look at it in relation to how the biblical authors wrote thei books.

This will help us to better see as Nephi saw.

[volgadon]

Actually the correct context for Absalom and the concubines was rape. Which carried an even greater desecration than merely supplanting of authority, but actual humiliation of the authority itself. Was Reubens context in the same light?

Actually, neither in the account of Reuben or of Absalom is rape mentioned, and the terminology is identical in both.

[consiglieri]

It is undeniable that there are many biblical allusions in the BoM, especially in 1st Nephi. one could argue that JS was ripping off the Bible, one could hold the position that this was a pious fraud, but I would rather look at it in relation to how the biblical authors wrote thei books.

This will help us to better see as Nephi saw.

Through first becoming aware of, and then studying the different types and themes and allusions between Old Testament stories, I am beginning to see them jump out at me in the Book of Mormon, as well.

Ben is right to caution that we have to be careful not to see allusions behind every tree (of life), but we cannot deny that they are present and can serve as a useful, and even intended, method of instruction in the scriptures.

For example, it is hard for me not to see something of Joseph in Nephi, who is favored with a wonderful dream that places the imprimatur of divine approval upon his selection to be favored above his older brothers.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Actually the correct context for Absalom and the concubines was rape.

Even in olde England, there was a reason having a tryst with the queen was punished as treason.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

The story of Tamar is presented positively in the Bible.

Tamar is presented positively - not Judah, which is the point.

And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

Judah, in fact, had no qualms sleeping with a harlot but wanted to kill his daughter-in-law when he realized she was pregnant.

IMO, he's not looking too good in this account.

[volgadon]

Tamar is presented positively - not Judah, which is the point.

Judah isn't presented too negatively either. And at any rate, it wasn't anything against Jacob, which his brothers' actions were.

Judah, in fact, had no qualms sleeping with a harlot but wanted to kill his daughter-in-law when he realized she was pregnant.

IMO, he's not looking too good in this account.

Has little to do with our standards of morality. If we don't look at Reuben's sin so much as breaking the law of chastity as it was an attempt to take away Jacob's authority, then we can make sense of why Judah's loose morality did not disqualify him from leading the family.

Whatever Judah's indiscretions may have been, as the future head kinsman he could not afford to be seen as weak. By Tamar going out and getting preggers, it mean that Judah had no control over his own household, so why should he lead the rest of them?

[mercyngrace]

Has little to do with our standards of morality. If we don't look at Reuben's sin so much as breaking the law of chastity as it was an attempt to take away Jacob's authority, then we can make sense of why Judah's loose morality did not disqualify him from leading the family.

Whatever Judah's indiscretions may have been, as the future head kinsman he could not afford to be seen as weak. By Tamar going out and getting preggers, it mean that Judah had no control over his own household, so why should he lead the rest of them?

As I read it, the bigger issue was Judah breaking his oath to Tamar. According to the Genesis account, refusing to provide Tamar with a child was a pretty big deal. Consider Onan.

[volgadon]

As I read it, the bigger issue was Judah breaking his oath to Tamar. According to the Genesis account, refusing to provide Tamar with a child was a pretty big deal. Consider Onan.

You just brought up two separate issues. When he found out she was pregnant he still did not know who the father was.