Conquest of Jerusalem - 597 BCE

[Robert F. Smith]

So whenever a biblical writer fails to mention some event we should assume it's because he knew it was already "on record" (whatever that means) in the "previous narrative" (whatever that means)? And since I Kings 1 is "only a few verses later" than II Samuel 24:15, we should assume that the Tanakh was composed on one giant scroll passed down from Moses to Malachi? If I wrote a book about my personal experience on 9/11 but failed to mention airplanes, terrorists, the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, would you assume that I just didn't want to repeat "the previous narrative"?

What you have described is actually pretty close to the views of Joseph Smith. He viewed the books of the Old Testament as having been written in the same chronological order as they appear in the Bible, and accumulated, as they were passed down, in a single volume.

I simply follow the facts to their logical conclusion.

I don't imagine either that every biblical writer was conscious of sequential composition, nor that Brother Joseph was so shallow as to believe that every book of the Old Testament was composed sequentially in the order they appear (in the LXX canonical order of books generally followed in English Bibles, rather than in the Hebrew order of the Tanakh). Some genres of biblical literature would hardly lend themselves to that sort of absurd assumption and the notion would likely be rejected out of hand by any country bumpkin. Surely it wouldn't take too long for even the most intellectually challenged reader to realize that Chronicles repeats much of what is found in Kings.

However, some books were composed in a sequential, unitary fashion, e.g., in the judgment of Yehuda Radday, the Book of Samuel was likely composed by one individual (the two sections developed later because it required two scrolls to accommodate it). Not only are there structural and literary reasons for this view, but the work of Ezra the Scribe in putting together the basic Hebrew Canon has similarly strong arguments in its favor. I can cite one particularly noteworthy example in the work of my friend the late David Noel Freedman in demonstrating why so much should be attributed to the work of Ezra in his book The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Univ. of Michigan, 1991).

In simply following the facts to their logical conclusion, you appear to be making assumptions which are not supported by the available facts, and even sometimes going against reason and logic so as to support those invidious assumptions.

[Dan Vogel]

That's a deft way of avoiding the very difficult implications of the non-biblical phrase in Alma 7:10 "land of Jerusalem" being found in the Amarna Letters. It isn't only that the Dan Vogel theory that Joseph had to have been the greatest scholar of his day and therefore surely knew that the Bible placed the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (even if only for early Christian apologetic reasons, since it was the birthplace of King David also), but why would he throw us the curve of saying that Jesus was born in the "land of Jerusalem"? Was it because he brilliantly deduced (based on European and Crusader history) that Jerusalem was a duchy which included Bethlehem in its jurisdiction? How cunning!! I can envision him pouring over the best maps available at Harvard College.

Not at all. More like the BOM's having Zarahemla in the "land of Zarahemla," etc.

Why assume JS had to know what you know?

[LeSellers]

why would he throw us the curve of saying that Jesus was born in the "land of Jerusalem"?

Picking nits, as I do for fun and profit, I point out that the Alma reference is not "in the land of Jerusalem", but "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers".

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

Picking nits, as I do for fun and profit, I point out that the Alma reference is not "in the land of Jerusalem", but "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers".

And that is according to the printer's manuscript.

[Robert F. Smith]

Picking nits, as I do for fun and profit, I point out that the Alma reference is not "in the land of Jerusalem", but "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers".

Lehi

And that is according to the printer's manuscript.

An excellent observation on Alma 7:10 from both of you, but not dispositive.

For, not only does the exact phrase "the land of Jerusalem" occur at I Nephi 3:9, but referring to Jerusalem as a "land" rather than a city is rather jarring, and needs to be explained, as I have done at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=814 .

[Mortal Man]

For, not only does the exact phrase "the land of Jerusalem" occur at I Nephi 3:9,

I Nephi 3:9 has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

but referring to Jerusalem as a "land" rather than a city is rather jarring,

Really? How about D&C 133:24?

As Dan Vogel has implied, virtually every geographical location, city or otherwise, was a "land of" something to JS; e.g.,

Moses 7:9 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked, and I beheld the land of Sharon, and the land of Enoch, and the land of Omner, and the land of Heni, and the land of Shem, and the land of Haner, and the land of Hanannihah, and all the inhabitants thereof;

So what is the "land of Omner" and the "land of Heni"? Well, we know that Omner and Himni were brothers:

Mosiah 27:34 And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.

and that Omner had a city:

Alma 51:26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

so it seems reasonable to infer that Heni (aka Himni) had a city as well.

and needs to be explained, as I have done at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=814 .

Where then was Jesus born? Truly, in Bethlehem of the land of Judaea (see Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1-6; Luke 2:4)

[Bill Hamblin]

I Nephi 3:9 has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Really? How about D&C 133:24?

As Dan Vogel has implied, virtually every geographical location, city or otherwise, was a "land of" something to JS; e.g.,

Moses 7:9 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked, and I beheld the land of Sharon, and the land of Enoch, and the land of Omner, and the land of Heni, and the land of Shem, and the land of Haner, and the land of Hanannihah, and all the inhabitants thereof;

So what is the "land of Omner" and the "land of Heni"? Well, we know that Omner and Himni were brothers:

Mosiah 27:34 And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.

and that Omner had a city:

Alma 51:26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

so it seems reasonable to infer that Heni (aka Himni) had a city as well.

Once again, Jesus was born in Nazareth, in the land of Galilee.

You misquoted Alma 7:10:

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers...

and Helaman 16:19 has nothing to do with Jesus' birth:

Yea, why will he not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?

We get it now. No amount of evidence or explanation will suffice to change your mind or demonstrate that there is no substantive problem in the Book of Mormon on this issue.

And there is no, absolutely no evidence that Jesus was born in Nazareth. If you don't accept the authenticity of the nativity narratives in the NT, then we don't and can't know where Jesus was born. We know he was raised in Nazareth--and hence was called a Nazarene--but the first and second centuries AD was the period of greatest potential mobility in the history of the the region. As a craftsman, Joseph could very well have wandered all over the region getting work where major construction projects existed. There is ample evidence of Jews and Gentiles migrating extensively during this age. So the fact that Jesus was raised in Nazareth does not tell us he was born there any more than the fact I was raised in Utah proves that I was born in Utah (I wasn't).

[Mortal Man]

We get it now. No amount of evidence or explanation will suffice to change your mind or demonstrate that there is no substantive problem in the Book of Mormon on this issue.

I've yet to see any "amount of evidence" that Alma 7:10 doesn't say, Jesus "shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem". Robert would like to change "at Jerusalem" to "land of Jerusalem" by conflating this verse with the desired phraseology in unrelated verses. Is this really your best argument?

Frankly, it wouldn't make much difference to me if Alma had said "land of Jerusalem" or even "at Bethlehem." It would make a difference to me if Alma had said "land of Galilee" or "at Nazareth".

And there is no, absolutely no evidence that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Yes there is, far more than Bethlehem, at any rate.

If you don't accept the authenticity of the nativity narratives in the NT, then we don't and can't know where Jesus was born.

If you accept the nativity narratives then please tell me when Jesus was born.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes there is, far more than Bethlehem, at any rate.

If you accept the nativity narratives then please tell me when Jesus was born.

CFR on evidence for Jesus being born in Nazareth.

We don't know what year Jesus was born. Which is the norm for ancient people; even kings. So? Get a grip. That's just the way ancient history is.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've yet to see any "amount of evidence" that Alma 7:10 doesn't say, Jesus "shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem". Robert would like to change "at Jerusalem" to "land of Jerusalem" by conflating this verse with the desired phraseology in unrelated verses. Is this really your best argument?

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers."

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you don't get it. JERUSALEM is the LAND. It's right there in the same sentence and crystal clear to anyone who doesn't insist on the most obtuse reading possible to sustain your prejudices and preposterous speculations. You are really not worth talking to.

[PaulBoyerFan]

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did? I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city. It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11. I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem. After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people. Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity? It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

[Bill Hamblin]

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did? I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city. It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11. I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem. After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people. Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity? It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

Have you read any of this discussion?

And have you read Jeremiah? Ask him.

This is really, really, REALLY a non-issue. Ancient texts always fail to mention all sorts of things we wish they would. So?

[Avatar4321]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians? After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24). And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation? 1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my father."

Because that is 3 years after they left Jerusalem.

[Robert F. Smith]

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did? I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city. It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11. I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem. After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people. Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity? It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

Because that is 3 years after they left Jerusalem.

Just in case Avatar is not putting us on, Lehi did not leave Jerusalem in 600 B.C. He left in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, which encompasses 597-596 B.C. The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

At the same time, PaulBoyerFan is equally off the beam in his off-the-cuff notions that Jerusalem had been conquered and devastated in early 597 B.C., as well as that some sort of 9/11 style attack was made on the city. In 598 B.C., the Neo-Babylonians came in with a huge army and intimidated the kingdom of Judah into capitulating, paying a massive levy, and having the king replaced and a large deportation of top officials and artisans to Babylon in early 597 B.C. The total with families may have been as high as 8,000 to 10,000 (2 Kings 24:14-16), which is not actually a large percent of the overall population of the city. Describing the remnants as "urban peasantry" is nonsense. The vast bulk of the armed men of Judah remained and posed a major problem for Nebuchadrezzar when he returned and laid siege to and destroyed the city of Jerusalem a decade later. It was that destruction that Lehi was speaking of prophetically, and it was a profound disaster.

It would have made no sense for Nephi to repeat what his father had already presumably written in his own account of events. Especially since Nephi takes up the story only after this major deportation. Like Jeremiah, Lehi was also presumably advising Judah to cooperate with the Neo-Babylonians, rather than with Egypt. Zedekiah and his coterie didn't listen, threatened Lehi's life, and he left Jerusalem. Had Nephi spent valuable space repeating what was already written in the Brass Plates and in the Book of Lehi, that would itself be anachronistic and evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

[Jon63]

Could one explanation be that the rock that was in the hat that Joseph had his face in for the translation malfunctioned?

[Lachoneus]

The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

But this is.

Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews

[Kevin Christensen]

For Book of Mormon calendar issues, especially interpreting the 600 year prophecy, see Randall Spackman, The Jewish/Nephite Calendar

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Could one explanation be that the rock that was in the hat that Joseph had his face in for the translation malfunctioned?

Hey, everyone, look, we have a joker in the house.

Actually what it was was just JS mixing scripture with the philosophies of man.

[PaulBoyerFan]

Just in case Avatar is not putting us on, Lehi did not leave Jerusalem in 600 B.C. He left in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, which encompasses 597-596 B.C. The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

At the same time, PaulBoyerFan is equally off the beam in his off-the-cuff notions that Jerusalem had been conquered and devastated in early 597 B.C., as well as that some sort of 9/11 style attack was made on the city. In 598 B.C., the Neo-Babylonians came in with a huge army and intimidated the kingdom of Judah into capitulating, paying a massive levy, and having the king replaced and a large deportation of top officials and artisans to Babylon in early 597 B.C. The total with families may have been as high as 8,000 to 10,000 (2 Kings 24:14-16), which is not actually a large percent of the overall population of the city. Describing the remnants as "urban peasantry" is nonsense. The vast bulk of the armed men of Judah remained and posed a major problem for Nebuchadrezzar when he returned and laid siege to and destroyed the city of Jerusalem a decade later. It was that destruction that Lehi was speaking of prophetically, and it was a profound disaster.

It would have made no sense for Nephi to repeat what his father had already presumably written in his own account of events. Especially since Nephi takes up the story only after this major deportation. Like Jeremiah, Lehi was also presumably advising Judah to cooperate with the Neo-Babylonians, rather than with Egypt. Zedekiah and his coterie didn't listen, threatened Lehi's life, and he left Jerusalem. Had Nephi spent valuable space repeating what was already written in the Brass Plates and in the Book of Lehi, that would itself be anachronistic and evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Let's see:

The Babylonian Chronicles state:

"11'. In the seventh year [598/597], the month of Kisl

[Bill Hamblin]

Let's see:

The Babylonian Chronicles state:

"11'. In the seventh year [598/597], the month of Kisl