A Book of Mormon Mystery Solved?

[Kevin Christensen]

Very interesting, Consig.

Have you read Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative? And Eliade's Cosmos and History: The Myth of Eternal Return. It seems like the verbal allusions that you've spotted also fit quite nicely with the Type Scene and archetypal patterns in the story. For example:

As Robert Alter remarks, "The type-scene is not merely a way of formally recognizing a particular kind of narrative moment; it is also a means of attaching that moment to a larger pattern of historical and theological meaning." (Alter, 60) Compare the general features of this account in Alma with a conspicuous pattern in ancient Near Eastern religion:

"One of the most striking features of the ancient Sacred Marriage cult was that the goddess had an important part to play in the resurrection of her husband. . . . We will recall how Anath made possible Baal-Hadad's resurrection by attacking and destroying his enemy, Mot, the god of death. In Mesopotamian myth it was Inanna-Ishtar who descended into the realm of death to destroy Erishkigal's power so that dead Dumuzi-Tammuz could be restored to life. Aristide's Apology describes how Aphrodite descended into Hades in order to ransom Adonis from Persephone. Cybele likewise made possible the resurrection of Attis on the third day, while in Egypt it was Isis who made possible the restoration of her husband, Osiris. . . . But no matter what the details of these ubiquitous Near Eastern death-and-resurrection legends, the underlying theme is the same: the god is helpless without the ministrations of his consort. . . . The reunion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the tomb on Resurrection Morning therefore clearly fits within this well-known tradition." (Seaich, A Great Mystery)

The same motif also appears in the Mesoamerican Popol Vuh in the story of One Hunahpu's death and the maiden daughter of the underworld lords, through whose courageous actions life was renewed.11

Also from Eliade Cosmos and History, 21-22, 36:

Every ritual has a divine model, an archetype. . . . Not only do rituals have their mythical model but any human act whatever acquires effectiveness to the extent to which it exactly repeats an act performed at the beginning of time by a god, a hero, or an ancestor. . . . Insofar as he repeats the archetypal sacrifice, the sacrificer, in full ceremonial action, abandons the profane world of mortals and introduces himself into the divine world of the immortals.

Nibley suggested that the Feast to which Lamoni had been summoned may have been the Year Rite, which means that rather than attending a ritual dramatization of the death and resurrection of the God, his descent into the underworld, and the actions of his consort in morning and seeking him, that Lamoni and the Queen experienced in reality much of what the Rite enacted, and prefigured.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scottie]

Consig

What's the deal? I am actually starting to feel sympathy for you! You get it from both sides don't you?!

Naw. I love Consig. Just some good natured ribbing.

[consiglieri]

Dear Kevin,

I read your post this morning and must confess I am stunned and surprised.

Thank you so much for the quote from Seaich's recent book, A Great Mystery, in which he summarizes the "ubiquitous Near Eastern death-and-resurrection legends" in which "the underlying theme is the same: the god is helpless without the ministrations of his consort," and further suggesting, "The reunion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the tomb on Resurrection morning therefore clearly fits within this well-known tradition."

This is critical to a paper I wrote three years ago comparing "raising scenes" in the Book of Mormon to similar scenes in the Acts of John; the primary point of similarity being the unusual aspect that women raise the dead (or seemingly dead).

I had submitted this to FARMS and it got panned because the reviewer said that while the comparison is interesting, there is no reason to think there would be any cultural connection between the two texts. I think you just provided the missing link.

Even more amazing to me is that Seaich, based upon his virtually encyclopedic knowledge of ancient legend and myth, concludes that the reunion of Jesus and Mary on the morning of the resurrection fits within this well-known tradition; amazing because that is the same conclusion I reached in the paper three-years ago.

Now, for the sixty-four dollar question:

How is it that my personal studies of the Book of Mormon should lead me to the same conclusion as reached by Seaich based upon his exhaustive studies of ancient Near-Eastern death and resurrection legends?

I am going to copy and paste the body of the paper below, which is just how I wrote it three years back. It is lengthy and so you don't need to read all of it, I will highlight the section toward the end in which I draw this same conclusion.

BOOK OF MORMON RESURRECTION STORIES AND THE ACTS OF JOHN

October 22, 2007

Type-Scenes in the Bible

It has long been recognized that the Bible contains many

[consiglieri]

Naw. I love Consig. Just some good natured ribbing.

Stop it, Scottie.

You're stepping on my victim status.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David T]

Dear Kevin,

Now, for the sixty-four dollar question:

How is it that my personal studies of the Book of Mormon should lead me to the same conclusion as reached by Seaich based upon his exhaustive studies of ancient Near-Eastern death and resurrection legends?

It can't be because you were taught by the spirit. Because, isn't it, like, common knowledge around here that you ignore the spirit and rely only on the arm of flesh?

[consiglieri]

In any case, we owe you a debt for identifying the connection to be explained. Your readings show that the Book of Mormon is a far richer text than its critics have imagined, and I hope you long continue making and contributing your insight.

Wow! Thanks for the high praise, Don. You are way too kind.

You are probably right about the "Samuel the Lamanite connection," which I threw in for no extra charge. There is nothing in the text that would mark how the reader is supposed to get this connection, if connection there be. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon has many story threads running forward and back throughout its 500-pages, which are handled adroitly and in most cases, seamlessly.

Is it possible this is one thread that got lost in the process?

(Nothing I like better than piling one speculation on top of another. )

I am certainly open to any connections that might be seen by others, especially those with erudition similar to yours.

On an unrelated note, I have wanted to mention to you that double-sevens appear in the Old Testament with Joseph's dream of seven-years of plenty followed by seven-years of famine; and also may be related to Joshua's taking of Jericho by having the Israelites circle the city once each day for six days, and then on the seventh day circle the city seven times.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Kevin Christensen]

Dear Kevin,

I read your post this morning and must confess I am stunned and surprised.

Thank you so much for the quote from Seaich's recent book, A Great Mystery, in which he summarizes the "ubiquitous Near Eastern death-and-resurrection legends" in which "the underlying theme is the same: the god is helpless without the ministrations of his consort," and further suggesting, "The reunion of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at the tomb on Resurrection morning therefore clearly fits within this well-known tradition."

This is critical to a paper I wrote three years ago comparing "raising scenes" in the Book of Mormon to similar scenes in the Acts of John; the primary point of similarity being the unusual aspect that women raise the dead (or seemingly dead).

I had submitted this to FARMS and it got panned because the reviewer said that while the comparison is interesting, there is no reason to think there would be any cultural connection between the two texts. I think you just provided the missing link.

Even more amazing to me is that Seaich, based upon his virtually encyclopedic knowledge of ancient legend and myth, concludes that the reunion of Jesus and Mary on the morning of the resurrection fits within this well-known tradition; amazing because that is the same conclusion I reached in the paper three-years ago.

Now, for the sixty-four dollar question:

How is it that my personal studies of the Book of Mormon should lead me to the same conclusion as reached by Seaich based upon his exhaustive studies of ancient Near-Eastern death and resurrection legends?

I am going to copy and paste the body of the paper below, which is just how I wrote it three years back. It is lengthy and so you don't need to read all of it, I will highlight the section toward the end in which I draw this same conclusion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I like the paper very much. Very insightful. I quote an earlier version of Seaich's A Great Mystery, not having the budget to get the official, more recent one ($100). Reading Alan Goff on Book of Mormon type scenes got me into Robert Alter, and that combined with previous readings of Campbell and Eliade and fed into our paper Women in the Book of Mormon in RBBM 10:2. I'm glad you found some resonance in Seaich quote. It is one of those passages that hit me profoundly when I first read it. It does fit nicely with your reading here.

Incidentally, speaking of type scenes, I think that Nephi alludes to the story of Elijah and the Widow in telling his story about Sariah's complaint. If you compare what the Widow says when her son is raised up with what Sariah says when the boys come back home, you should see the connection. I think that everytime women move from the background to the foreground in the Book of Mormon, there is something archetypal behind it.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[consiglieri]

Incidentally, speaking of type scenes, I think that Nephi alludes to the story of Elijah and the Widow in telling his story about Sariah's complaint. If you compare what the Widow says when her son is raised up with what Sariah says when the boys come back home, you should see the connection. I think that everytime women move from the background to the foreground in the Book of Mormon, there is something archetypal behind it.

I will have to check out the Sariah/Elijah connection when I get a break.

I used to think that women got short shrift in the Book of Mormon, and while that may be true in some regards, I agree with you that when they are mentioned, it seems to be in ways that ongoing scholarship increasingly indicates are significant.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

1 Kings 17:17-24 And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. And she said unto Elijah, "What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?" And he said unto her, "Give me thy son." And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the Lord, and said, "O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?" And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, "O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child

[Ahab]

Some very interesting conjecture. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I think it's also possible that when the king said what he said to his queen he had the idea in mind that she would be blessed in the way all believers in Jesus Christ are and will be blessed by him.

I'll quote what the king said with some highlights while suggesting that you read only the highlighted portion:

Blessed be the name of God, and blessed art thou. For as sure as thou livest, behold, I have seen my Redeemer; and he shall come forth, and be born of a woman, and he shall redeem all mankind who believe on his name.

Before reading your comments I considered the fact that the king saw our Redeemer, as well as the fact that the king knew our Redeemer would be born of a woman, to be of secondary importance to me, personally, with the primary message being that our Redeemer would come and bless those who believe in him.

Surely, we can receive no greater blessing than him.

[Connolly]

This would be similar to the famous Messianic prophecy of Isaiah to King Ahaz, in which Isaiah says that the Lord himself would give him "a sign," that a "virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Most Bible scholars are agreed that the context of the prophecy is of a virgin who would conceive a son that would be born in King Ahaz' day, else how could it be a sign to him? An additional component is found in Isaiah 7:16 that points toward a contemporary fulfillment. It seems likely that the primary "sign" given through Isaiah refers to a son born to Isaiah's wife.

The secondary (though more important) fulfillment of the "sign" was in the birth of Jesus Christ.

Consiglieri, I think you are just a little off track on your interpretation of the Isaiah prophecy.

Lets start at the beginning of chapter seven. Israel is under threat of war. In verse 3 Isaiah is commanded to go out to meet Ahaz who is out at the aqueduct - possibly evaluating its defenses given the threat of war. The Lord commands Isaiah to take his son Shear-Jasub. The reason why will become apparent in just a few verses.

The conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz deal with the pending threat of war. In the course of the conversation Isaiah gives Ahaz a sign - one that will come to pass many centuries later, and one that will come to pass in just a few years, which Ahaz will witness. The first sign is the Immanuel prophecy. But then Isaiah switches gears and give Ahaz a sign that will very soon, "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." This child is not the same child born to a virgin in the Immanuel prophecy, it is not a child that shall eat butter and honey, this second child is none other than Issiah's son Shear-Jasub.

Picture the two men standing there while a young boy plays nearby, possibly in the water of the aqueduct. Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy, and then a second sign, perhaps he gestures to Shear-Jasub as the says "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

This is a crucial point to understand the two signs. Its not hard to understand the Immanuel prophecy, but to understand the next part we need to remember that God commanded Isaiah to take Shear-Jasub with him and understand the historical context. What is the land that Ahaz abhorred? Who are both of the kings? And what happened just shortly after the prophecy? The land that Ahaz aborred was the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Pekah, the king of the Northern kingdom was allied with Rezin, king of Aram (Verse 1 says Syria but Rezin was actually king of Aram, a city-state in the area between the Northenn Kingdom and Syria in the region of modern day Lebanon)

We don't know precisely when Isaiah delivered these words but we can narrow it down a bit because we know when Ahaz took the throne, when Pekah and Rezin allied with each other, and when the Northern Kingdom and Aram were destroyed. We can also know that Shear-Jasub was a young boy, perhaps a toddler. The sign was likely given somewhere between two to six years before the Northern Kingdom and Aram were destroyed by the Assyrians.

In other words, before Shear-Jasub was old enough to know to choose right and wrong, the kings and the kingdoms to the north of Judah would no longer be a threat.

Something for you to chew on.

[LinuxGal]

I used to think that women got short shrift in the Book of Mormon, and while that may be true in some regards, I agree with you that when they are mentioned, it seems to be in ways that ongoing scholarship increasingly indicates are significant.

It is a shame, because a bigger role for women could have made things so much easier for some of the men in the BoM. One time Mosiah got curious about the land of Lehi-Nephi, because his people "wearied him with their teasings" on account of their lack of knowledge about the Old Country. So Mosiah commissioned sixteen strong men to go back to Lehi-Nephi to find out what has going on back there. Their leader was Ammon, a descendant of Zarahemla. He didn't actually know the way to Lehi-Nephi, so they wandered for forty days in the wilderness. If they had taken a woman, she would have asked for directions and shortened the trip!