The Fourth Son Shall be King

[Jeff K.]

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

In Absalom's case it would be hard to believe the concubines of David were willing participants. The rape was to humiliate and show David's impotence and to show Absalom's strength in order to firm up support.

[Jeff K.]

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

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Its a good thing the queen was as powerless as concubines eh?

[mercyngrace]

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

Here is my comment:

mercyngrace, on 20 March 2010 - 09:22 PM, said:

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.

The Genesis account says that Onan refused to fufill his father's request and provide a son for his brother (v.9). V.10 says that God slew Onan for this.

Later, Judah fails to follow through by withholding Shelah.

In both cases, Tamar was denied an heir and in both cases the men failed to fulfill their responsibility to her. That's how I read it anyway. How do you read it?

[CV75]

I came across Orihah today in Ether 6, teh fourth son of Jared and annointed king.

[consiglieri]

Bumping in hopes Ben McGuire will join in . . .

[Benjamin McGuire]

Allright, allright, I was avoiding this thread, but since I have been nudged, here goes, starting at the top:

First, for Consiglieri:

1: You have to be much more careful when dealing with the issue of birthright. According to Genesis, the birthright goes to Joseph, not to Judah. Birthright has nothing to do with kingship. Joseph is the one who gets the double inheritance in the promised land (both Ephraim and Manasseh get a portion - the two sons of Joseph). Judah is rejected by his actions (following your comments). Joseph himself has issues (read: deep character flaws), but those flaws are resolved at some point. And there is no question that Joseph's dreams indicate that he is the ruler of his family. We could have a rather lengthy discussion over the ways in which the text is later manipulated to deal with one issue or another. Genesis 34 for example (which you reference) and Shechem is a text which was modified quite late in part as a response to the Samaritans and their construction of a temple and their capitol at Shechem. The same is true with David. The whole David/Jonathon issue is very interesting from a textual perspective. And Saul was a descendant of Benjamin (thus in part the rough treatment of Benjamin in the narrative dealing with the concubine of the Levite - particularly in the context of not having a king).

2: It seems to me that the issue with Judah is a non-starter. It is coincidence. It might be better to argue for a tradition in which David was the youngest of only four (not eight) sons - but this is pretty speculative, and the speculation doesn't add a lot to our understanding of the text. But the stronger connection to David is not that Nephi was the fourth, but that Nephi was the youngest. And Nephi certainly might consider this to be important (that is, if he is comparing himself to David, then the fact that they were both the youngest son could be important - but not the notion of being a fourth son). At the same time, we want to be careful in what we assert here depending on how we view the text. As a historical text on some level, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and force a comparison here - a comparison which isn't very necessary to reading the text.

3: For us to take something beyond being merely a parallel or a coincidence, we have to discuss the value which it adds to the reading of the text. The rhetorical value (its value to the author's intention) is what ultimately separates a valuable intentional parallel with one that is merely coincidence. I think in this case, we don't see a lot of value added by looking at the number four.

Now, for 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

Allusion isn't a replacement for reality. Neither are texts. When we deal with texts, we deal with authors who are trying to convey some meaning or some proposition in their text, and we can look at the way that their arguments are constructed for insight. People inevitably use other texts. A lot of it is completely inadvertent. Some of it is intentional. No matter how you view history, we only get it through an interpreter's lens. Whether that interpreter is an historian, or whether it is our own analysis of artifacts and such, it is still a matter of interpretation. It is a flawed view to say that because history is interpreted that no record of that history is really history.

What I do is to look at the ways in which author's write their texts - specifically in this case, at the ways in which author's use other texts when constructing their own - and I use this to get more insight into what they intended to convey through their text. I am not so interested in what the history really was (since we aren't going to be able to recover that from a text in any case), I am interested in how an author chooses to present that history.

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.

No. Generally we seek an author's intent because we are genuinely interested in understanding what he meant when he wrote. This may not be important for some. They are free to ignore my comments.

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.

And this will be especially true of the later writers of the Book of Mormon, but it is simply not the case for Nephi, who was born and raised in Palestine at an easily identifiable and often discussed period of time. I also think that your comments are a bit short sighted in terms of placing value on certain kinds of interpretation. I think that it is important for us (as LDS readers) to distinguish between readings of the text which are exclusively our own ("scripture for today", "spiritually today", etc.) and that which was intended by the texts authors, and certainly to avoid thinking that the only reading of value is when we liken the text unto ourselves. While I am not opposed to such readings, I think we ought to be aware that these are readings whose meanings come far more from ourselves than from any ancient author.

One could suppose that perhaps the culture of Nephites and Lamanites in the Americas was relatively unchanged, ...

Yes, and 1 and 2 Nephi, as well as Jacob (a huge percentage of the text) doesn't have this issue. And, even in later periods, the authors of the Book of Mormon rely on identifiable texts, and if we ignore this, we seem to me to be losing some of the value of the text - even in reading it as scripture for today.

If cultural references change, it becomes dicey at best to presume some direct inference as being reflective of an earlier writing.

And ignoring it is helpful in what way? I think that this is part of the reason for the technical discussion in my paper. This isn't merely playing games with the text. And often we aren't dealing with inferences only but fairly concrete evidence for textual reliance in some form.

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".

I don't think so - but if you really want to engage me on the thesis of my paper, I would be happy to respond.

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.

While this is true, I think that they can't have it both ways. Allusion of the sort I explain is very complex, and tends to unite the text with rhetorical purpose. You might compare, for example, Vogel's explanations of the text I interpret in this way with mine. They aren't very compatible. And while you might suggest that a modern author of the Book of Mormon used such a complex rhetorical device, it tends to become an argument against the likes of Vogel's or the Spalding theory, and so on - particularly where it occurs - which would have been (according to modern authorship proponents) the hastily rewritten piece to replace the lost pages.

Ben McGuire

[Jeff K.]

Quote

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

Allusion isn't a replacement for reality. Neither are texts. When we deal with texts, we deal with authors who are trying to convey some meaning or some proposition in their text, and we can look at the way that their arguments are constructed for insight. People inevitably use other texts. A lot of it is completely inadvertent. Some of it is intentional. No matter how you view history, we only get it through an interpreter's lens. Whether that interpreter is an historian, or whether it is our own analysis of artifacts and such, it is still a matter of interpretation. It is a flawed view to say that because history is interpreted that no record of that history is really history.

What I do is to look at the ways in which author's write their texts - specifically in this case, at the ways in which author's use other texts when constructing their own - and I use this to get more insight into what they intended to convey through their text. I am not so interested in what the history really was (since we aren't going to be able to recover that from a text in any case), I am interested in how an author chooses to present that history.

Then we are in agreement that the allusion does not replace the reality. However I have seen suggestions from some here in an effort to undermine the Book of Mormon that allusion opens the door for a lack of factual occurance. "Inspired morality tales" is a term I have heard used. In my post you will see that I do agree with the idea of allusion since the Old Testament is an archtype of the life of Christ. Consig tends to veer in the wrong directions when he "wants" to sound contraversial.

Quote

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.

No. Generally we seek an author's intent because we are genuinely interested in understanding what he meant when he wrote. This may not be important for some. They are free to ignore my comments.

I do agree that we seek an authors intent. But you have confused process with the desire to know a persons intent. I spoke on process. And yes, for both processes there is a genuine interest. I would speak on that a bit more.

In this process, as I have said, we would disagree, or rather we disagree based on certain provisos. One is that in an academic setting we are indeed reduced to divining intent of primary sources through the study and triangulation of other primary sources and secondary sources also. However we do know that Joseph Smith had limited resources in regard to understanding the nature of the scriptures through the Joseph Smith translation, he had no further primary sources, or even secondary sources of which to speak. It was through prayer that he developed the translation process, much as he did with the Book of Mormon. In his transations he had to know intent for clarification and I believe he followed the process.

Quote

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.

And this will be especially true of the later writers of the Book of Mormon, but it is simply not the case for Nephi, who was born and raised in Palestine at an easily identifiable and often discussed period of time. I also think that your comments are a bit short sighted in terms of placing value on certain kinds of interpretation. I think that it is important for us (as LDS readers) to distinguish between readings of the text which are exclusively our own ("scripture for today", "spiritually today", etc.) and that which was intended by the texts authors, and certainly to avoid thinking that the only reading of value is when we liken the text unto ourselves. While I am not opposed to such readings, I think we ought to be aware that these are readings whose meanings come far more from ourselves than from any ancient author.

I will concede the points with Nephi and Lehi, they are more likely to be reflective of a well studied and better known culture. But I would also point out that the editing of the larger books under revelation were done to bring as much of a mutual cutlural understanding for us than is normally attributed. So what you end up with is a "skewed" version of their culture in which similarities are more exclusively used than otherwise. If you see mostly or almost exclusively similarities, how can you judge accurately the differences. Nephi is a case in point, where we see the question of the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in an understood Middle Eastern civilization being abrogated by circumstance, we have or understand both the cultural similarities and differences and how they play within the our knowledge of the system. I do not see that as being easily done with Alma, and also making the development of allusion a legitimate exercise.

Quote

One could suppose that perhaps the culture of Nephites and Lamanites in the Americas was relatively unchanged, ...

Yes, and 1 and 2 Nephi, as well as Jacob (a huge percentage of the text) doesn't have this issue. And, even in later periods, the authors of the Book of Mormon rely on identifiable texts, and if we ignore this, we seem to me to be losing some of the value of the text - even in reading it as scripture for today.

I would wonder if the identifianble texts had the same meaning to them that they do to us, making the connection even more tentative.

Quote

If cultural references change, it becomes dicey at best to presume some direct inference as being reflective of an earlier writing.

And ignoring it is helpful in what way? I think that this is part of the reason for the technical discussion in my paper. This isn't merely playing games with the text. And often we aren't dealing with inferences only but fairly concrete evidence for textual reliance in some form.

Ignoring what cannot be done is not worse that doing something incorrectly, especially where historical interpretation is concerned. It can be very easy to create a completely erroneous position based on a lack of legitimate perspective. Something akin to the projection of post dark age Greece into the Illiad and Odyssey. So I lean towards disagreement in that area.

Quote

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".

I don't think so - but if you really want to engage me on the thesis of my paper, I would be happy to respond.

I wouldn't mind engaging on the thesis of the paper, it might be an interesting exercise in seeing the full context of what you are attempting to achieve.

Quote

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.

While this is true, I think that they can't have it both ways. Allusion of the sort I explain is very complex, and tends to unite the text with rhetorical purpose. You might compare, for example, Vogel's explanations of the text I interpret in this way with mine. They aren't very compatible. And while you might suggest that a modern author of the Book of Mormon used such a complex rhetorical device, it tends to become an argument against the likes of Vogel's or the Spalding theory, and so on - particularly where it occurs - which would have been (according to modern authorship proponents) the hastily rewritten piece to replace the lost pages.

Perhaps, but I would state that even a complex explanation can be taken out of context. I have seen Consig move context in such a similar fashion, so when he chose to take but a small portion of your writings, and placed it in a deliberately provocative light, for myself I saw him advocating another "Volgelian" stance or rather a derivation of such. He has missed or overlooked context in this way before. Of course any writing can be taken out of context, the Gettysburgh address itself can be given some dark connotations if one does not understand the context of the speech within the peirod framework. You will note that the main thrust of my criticism was Consig's characterization of a limited quote from you.

But it leads to an interesting question, can an allusion be used as both a positive tool and negative tool towards the use scripture (other potential criticism put aside).

I hope this clarifies things.

[Jeff K.]

Bumping in hopes Ben McGuire will join in . . .

Juvenile is apparently not merely a description of youth.

[consiglieri]

Allright, allright, I was avoiding this thread, but since I have been nudged, here goes, starting at the top:

First, for Consiglieri:

Hi, Ben!

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I really appreciate it.

Given that the birthright went to Joseph, passing over Judah, do you have any sense as to why the rulership went to that line?

Is it simply because David became so famous a king and things kind of got reverse engineered after that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LeSellers]

Although David himself is described as being the eighth and youngest son of Jesse, the author of 1 Samuel appears to try to make the pattern fit the