Scribalization Of Prophecy And The Bom

[J Green]

Back in 2008, Nevo asked a great question: Is the scribalization of prophecy in the Book of Mormon anachronistic? I hadn't seen it at the time, but he recently asked for my opinion on it. In the thread he quotes from a relevant portion of Karel van der Toorn's book Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), which outlines the consensus view that the prophetic books were compilations by scribes from earlier oracle collections and that the idea of a prophet delivering his message anew through the vehicle of writing was a product of the exile.

After quoting this portion, Nevo says the following:

In the Book of Mormon, of course, writing prophets abound. This is consistent with Joseph Smith's idea that prophets wrote "books" (Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, et al. all kept written records), but it doesn't seem to fit the Book of Mormon's alleged pre-exilic context. Or was Lehi a scribe? (If so, how did he become a wealthy merchant, and Nephi a metallurgist?)

I had read van der Toorn's book but never looked at it from this aspect. So I picked it up again last night and re-read the pertinent parts. In a blog post about a year ago -- The Nephite-Kenite Hypothesis: Nephi as Scribe -- I had already made the case for Nephi and Lehi having scribal training, so it was interesting to look at the scribal model in this context. And reading van der Toon's scribal production thesis again only convinced me even more of Nephi's scribal background.

But before laying out where I see the application of this thesis to the BoM, I'd like to provide a deliciously lengthy summary of van der Toorn's chapter "Manufacturing the Prophets." After laying out the key points in the chaper, I'll ask Nevo for some quality control to see if I've left anything out. After he weighs in on my summarizing skills, I'll proceed to outline how I think I and II Nephi are the product of a similar process.

Should be fun.

[J Green]

Summary of chapter 7 ("Manufacturing the Prophets: Jeremiah as Scribal Artifact") in Karel van der Toorn's Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).

The current version of the prophetic books were finalized in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. However, these final narratives were based on earlier loose collections of oracles. These collections predate the exile:

• 
  There is solid evidence, however, that written collections of prophetic oracles were already in existence in the period of the monarchy, in the seventh and sixth centuries b.c.e. (173).
  

While these oracles were delivered by the prophets, they weren't written down or collected by the prophets but rather by their followers (182-4). Jeremiah is a good example, where the oracle collection is written down by a scribe in Jeremiah's personal entourage (184). These collections are then later fleshed out into a fuller narrative with additional material added in the compilation (185). Baruch would have been only one of several in a wider circle of supporters of Jeremiah among the literate elite (185). Similarly, the early oracle collections at the core of the other prophetic books were also likely the work of professional scribes (186).

Many of these oracle collections include a calling narrative that are comprised of such elements as seeing God enthroned, being presented a scroll to eat, or being touched on the mouth by God. (173-5). Many of the oracles were delivered at the temple (183). The volume and nature of these collections is unknowable, but likely "they were anthologies and compilations of quite heterogeneous materials" with various oracles about different subjects juxtaposed with each other (176-7). Similar Neo-assyrian oracle collections demonstrate this theory to be fairly likely (177-8 ).

In many cases the attribution of authorship of these books to the prophet is accurate for disparate units belonging to the original oracle collection but not to the compilation itself, which is the work of later scribes (178). But neither the original collection nor the later compilation was written by the prophet.

Most of the prophets did not write down their oracles but delivered them verbally to a largely illiterate audience (178). The biblical record does speak of prophets writing, and Mesopotamian literature and correspondence from Lachish confirm this (178-82). Yet while these few instances of biblical prophets writing are likely accurate, the prophets meant for their writing to communicate something in that time and place and not as a measure to preserve their oracles for future generations; however, the scribes did create compilations with the express purpose of preserving the oracles (181-2). The scribes that wrote these oracles mostly worked on the basis of recollection, using a powerful memory that was developed during scribal training but was mysteriously switched off when at home with their wives (186). Jeremiah can be a great model of this process:

On the strength of the biblical account of the making of the scroll of Jeremiah, it is possible to formulate a model for the way in which the prophetic books came into being. In this model, scribes are instrumental in the making of the collections. Their work naturally exhibits all the characteristics of scribal procedure, including transcription, invention, and expansion. (188)

This Jeremiah model is as follows:

Three propositions make up the model; translated to the Book of Jeremiah they hold that (1) the Book of Jeremiah is a scribal artifact; (2) the core of the book is based on personal and collective memory; and (3) the scribes expanded the original Jeremiah collection with material associated with Jeremiah but not necessarily from him. (188)

What follows in the chapter constitutes an exploration of this Jeremiah model. Along the way, van der Toorn makes the point that it is the work of scribes (188-9); and that it has parallels with other forms, including psalms and wisdom literature (189). The scribal purpose was to create a didactic work for edification and instruction (190). In the compilation, the scribes reconstruct the oracles to create a prophetic biography narrative patterned after earlier prophetic narratives, such as Moses, Samuel, or Micah (192). In doing so, the scribes borrow heavily from the Psalms (193). They also borrow generously from disparate oracles, sometimes creating a montage of citations of various prophecies (192). They recycle earlier oracles in different versions that are re-contextualized (192). The scribes rely on personal and collective memory to craft the narrative from the oracle collections (195-9). And they reconstruct and adapt the earlier material to their current condition:

The different versions of Jer 25:1–13 show that the scribes of the Jeremiah tradition were not only adding “many [other] words like these”; they were also reframing the message of the prophet in such a way as to make it relevant for their own time. The doctrine of the succession of world empires occurs in full-blown form in the Book of Daniel and other apocalyptic writings; its purport is to show that God rules world history. Human kingdoms have their day until, at the end of time, God will establish His reign. The Jeremiah edition extant in the Masoretic text marks an intermediate stage between prophecy as a commentary on national history and prophecy as a global vision of world history. (202)

Van der Toorn repeatedly emphasizes the fact that the exile itself is a motivating factor on a renewed focus on the authority of prophetic oracles:

Such evidence proves the existence of pre-exilic prophecies written down on scrolls; the pre-exilic prophets thus had a counterpart in oracle collections from before the exile. It is hardly surprising that the references to this tradition of written prophecy are almost all from the period of the early exile; after the disastrous events of 597 and 586—the first deportation to Babylon and the second deportation after the capture of Jerusalem—the study of the prophets was a way of coming to terms with the national catastrophe. The Torah Edition of Deuteron-omy mentions fulfillment of predictions as the main criterion by which true prophets are to be distinguished from impostors (Deut 18:21–22); the editor formulated this criterion after, and in light of, the fall of Jeru-salem and the destruction of the temple. True prophets were those who had foreseen those events, as Micah had when saying Jerusalem would become heaps of ruins (Jer 26:18; Mic 3:12). The Deuteronomic crite-rion of true prophecy presupposes the existence of written prophecy, for otherwise it would hardly be possible to check whether a prophet had been right or wrong. (175)

After all this, van der Toorn concludes his chapter with a summary of everything he has outlined in the chapter in three paragraphs (Nevo quotes the first two paragraphs in his thread):

The Book of Jeremiah is paradigmatic of the books that the Bible attri-butes to pre-exilic prophets: the prophets who gave their names to the books wrote neither those books nor the oracles they contain; the Neviim are the work of scribes. The scribes who composed the books used written records based on the recollections of partisans and sup-porters of the prophets; separate oracles existed in written form before the collections took shape. Narratives about the prophets also had their source in memories cultivated and transmitted by the prophets' sympa-thizers. Working with written sources of various kinds, the composers of the prophetic books expanded the prophetic materials by a pro-cess of relecture, creative citation, and appropriation of written oracles from anonymous prophets.

By the early exilic period, written oracle collections had become an established phenomenon with the literate elite of the Jews; as a result, the authority of the prophets became a scriptural authority. This de-velopment would have several consequences, one of which was the “scribalization” of prophecy. Once prophecy had become a written genre, new prophets employed writing as the principal means of disseminating their ideas. The anonymous individual known as Deutero-Isaiah is likely to have been a prophet of the new stamp: he wrote his message, instead of preaching it in the streets. In the late Persian and the early Hellenistic periods, the posthumous transformation of prophets into writers was complete; those wishing to emulate the prophets, such as the author of the visions of Daniel (Dan 7–12), presented their work as a scribal activity.

Another consequence triggered by the scribalization of prophecy was a new paradigm of revelation. As I shall demonstrate in the next chapter, the transition of authority from the spoken word to the written text led to a reinterpretation of the notion of revelation. Just as prophecy had become written prophecy, so the concept of revelation would be-come coterminous with the book. Without their knowing it, the scribes who wrote down the oracles and composed the prophetic collections were sowing the seeds of a radical transformation of Israelite religion. (203-4)

Edited January 11, 2012 by J Green

[Robert F. Smith]

Back in 2008, Nevo asked a great question: Is the scribalization of prophecy in the Book of Mormon anachronistic? I hadn't seen it at the time, but he recently asked for my opinion on it. In the thread he quotes from a relevant portion of Karel van der Toorn's book Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), which outlines the consensus view that the prophetic books were compilations by scribes from earlier oracle collections and that the idea of a prophet delivering his message anew through the vehicle of writing was a product of the exile.

After quoting this portion, Nevo says the following:

I had read van der Toorn's book but never looked at it from this aspect. So I picked it up again last night and re-read the pertinent parts. In a blog post about a year ago -- The Nephite-Kenite Hypothesis: Nephi as Scribe -- I had already made the case for Nephi and Lehi having scribal training, so it was interesting to look at the scribal model in this context. And reading van der Toon's scribal production thesis again only convinced me even more of Nephi's scribal background.

But before laying out where I see the application of this thesis to the BoM, I'd like to provide a deliciously lengthy summary of van der Toorn's chapter "Manufacturing the Prophets." After laying out the key points in the chaper, I'll ask Nevo for some quality control to see if I've left anything out. After he weighs in on my summarizing skills, I'll proceed to outline how I think I and II Nephi are the product of a similar process.

Should be fun.

I have just read your fine piece on the Nephite-Kenite Hypothesis, and shortly before that posted the following on the other thread:

I have read that entire 2008 thread, and, yes, when viewed from a KJV biblical perspective, scribalization of prophecy in the Book of Mormon does seem anachronistic.

First, because that scribal record (and the Brass Plates of Laban) is kept in Egyptian.

Second, because there is no hint that Lehi & Nephi are royal scribes, or priestly scribes (unlike Jeremiah and his scribes, they are not from a priestly family) -- unless they hailed from an refugee family of erstwhile royal scribes to the Court in Samaria (Northern Kingdom) a century earlier.

Third, such specialized training must have been relatively rare -- particularly in Egyptian -- although we now know that some professional Israelite scribes were trained in Akkadian (so David P. Wright) and Egyptian (so Rainey, Loprieno, and Schniedewind).

The Midianite/Qenite hypothesis is particularly intruiging. After all, the first destination of Clan Lehi in effecting an escape from Jerusalem is to the periphery of ancient Midian. What better place to go if the family had made their living at some recent time in the past by caravaneering as itinerant smiths (Qenites), thus combining their mercantile and metallurgical activity with far-flung trade in precious metals and gems. That would explain a lot!!

We do not have Lehi's own writings, and so have no idea what his early years were like, nor whether the family spent an extended period in ancient Egypt (where large communities of Semites had lived for thousands of years -- at one point ruling North Egypt).

What we do know is that the family was wealthy, that they had metallurgical and hunting skills, that they knew how to travel in the wilderness, and that Lehi immediately built a stone altar and offered an animal sacrifice in ancient patriarchal fashion. These are not the actions of newbies from a buying spree at REI.

[Robert F. Smith]

Jeremiah is described as dictating oracles and commentary to his scribes (Baruch and his brother Seriah), all of whom are priests. When the king of Judah takes umbrage and destroys one of Jeremiah's leather scrolls by cutting it at the seams and burning each portion, Jeremiah simply dictates the same again, but with additional material.

When Jeremiah is taken to Egypt (against his will), he is accompanied by his scribe Seriah -- who proceeds to edit his own version of the book which will become the Hebrew redaction translated by the Septuaginta in the 3rd century B.C. -- while his brother Baruch is taken to Babylon, where he edits a different version of the book, which eventually becomes the traditional Hebrew Massoretic Text.

In both Bible and Book of Mormon the complex transmission of such prophetic texts can be successfully analyzed following the rules of the Documentary Hypothesis, and your (and van der Toorn's) comments herein are very helpful in demonstrating what some of the interpretive consequences might be. Thanks Joey.

Bob

[J Green]

Robert,

Looks like we're missing each other between the two threads. Thanks for the comments.

[cdowis]

The Book of Jeremiah is paradigmatic of the books that the Bible attri-butes to pre-exilic prophets: the prophets who gave their names to the books wrote neither those books nor the oracles they contain; the Neviim are the work of scribes. The scribes who composed the books used written records based on the recollections of partisans and sup-porters of the prophets; separate oracles existed in written form before the collections took shape.

I seem to remember Nibley making this point, "by the hand of Abraham" and the colophon of Nephi to indicate that they were the actual authors of their writings..

[Nevo]

But before laying out where I see the application of this thesis to the BoM, I'd like to provide a deliciously lengthy summary of van der Toorn's chapter "Manufacturing the Prophets." After laying out the key points in the chaper, I'll ask Nevo for some quality control to see if I've left anything out. After he weighs in on my summarizing skills, I'll proceed to outline how I think I and II Nephi are the product of a similar process.

Thanks for taking the time to put this together, J. Your summary of van der Toorn's chapter looks great. Keep it coming!

[J Green]

I had hoped to go through all of I and II Nephi today to gather all the data, but alas, life got in the way. And tomorrow looks to be even busier. I grabbed a few verses here and there, but I wasn't able to do a thorough look at the text. So what follows is merely a sketch of how Nephi's text generally fits van der Toorn's model. The outline assumes that Nephi is a trained scribe, the full argument for which can be found in my blog entry referenced above.

Nephi does not initially create a prophetic narrative but rather a historical record. What we know as I and II Nephi is fashioned some 30 years after the journey to the promised land (2 Ne 5:28-33) and after the first record had already been created. The question is, does Nephi's prophetic text more resemble van der Toorn's vision of Deutero-Isaiah (a prophetic message that was written first and intended to be delivered in writing), or does it more resemble the Jeremiah model in that it existed first as a collection of prophetic oracles and was later expanded and reframed with a narrative that recontextualizes it for another time and place?

I believe it to be the latter. Nephi records his and his father's prophecies initially and only later does he recontextualize them into a distinct narrative framework that includes expansions based on memory and other oracles, creates parallels to other prophetic narratives, seeks to instruct and edify, includes throne theophanies and other call narratives, relies on the Psalms, focuses on land-covenant promises after the destruction of Jerusalem, generally obsesses over prophecy-fulfillment, and meets other indicators of the scribalization of prophetic narrative listed by van der Toorn.

On his first set of plates, Nephi wrties his father's record and both of their prophecies (1 Ne 19:1). I note two things: First, Nephi appears to be acting as his father's scribe in some capacity (even though Lehi creates his own record as well). Second, what Nephi tells us is that the prophetic oracles have been recorded, which means that it is likely that the prophecies used on the second set of plates, around which the narrative will be formed, have already been written down similar to the pre-exilic prophetic oracle collections.

Note, too, the earliest references to Lehi's interaction with recorded oracles also have this flavor. An angelic visitor presents Lehi with a book of prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (1 Ne 1:11-13). The contents of this volume aren't inventoried for us, but what it does say (the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be destroyed, taken into captivity, and endure exile as a form of judgment) appears to be of the prophetic oracle genre rather than a full scribalized narrative. The description again coincides with the pre-exilic prophetic oracle collections and seems similar to the Book of Micah that predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and was apparently known to at least the editors of Kings and Jeremiah (van der Toorn, 174).

According to Nephi, the things that Lehi himself records are the following:

• And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account. (1 Ne 1:16)

Here again we see a picture of a collection of prophetic oracles and call narratives and not a secondary compilation that creates a narrative framework to link the oracles together. What is mentioned are the things that are preached. The oracles, dreams, and prophetic calls happen first and then are recorded afterwards. They are not written first as the message. The pattern we see follows the model of Jeremiah as opposed to van der Toorn's take on Deutero-Isaiah.
And other elements are present that point to a prophetic oracle collection. Nephi records Lehi's throne theophany (1 Ne 1:6-8 ) and the presentation of a book (likely a scroll; 1 Ne 1:9-14 ), similar to other pre-exilic call narratives in prophetic oracle collections. And Nephi's summary of Lehi's record centers mostly on oracles that were likely preached first and written later: Invective against Jerusalem (1 Ne 1:18-20 ), oracles to family members (many times), Tree of Life vision (1 Ne 8 ), prophecy on the coming of the Messiah (1 Ne 10 ), etc. What is left beyond these prophetic oracles that were likely preached first and written down later is a small portion of narrative that strings these together and is likely created later by Nephi himself as he takes these recorded oracles (his and his father's prophecies that he recorded on the first plates) and expands them into a new prophetic book on his ministry (on the second set of plates).
Nephi's own text, apart from the summary he provides of his father's record, seems to behave in the same fashion. It is mostly a record of call narratives and oracles that were likely preached first. His own call that includes land covenants (1 Ne 2), his own vision of the tree of life (1 Ne 8 ), oracles to his family about judgment, prophecies about the future inspired by the writings of Isaiah. Etc.
Nephi then takes these earlier-recorded oracles and expands on them as he fashions a prophetic narrative. He intentionally parallels Exodus patterns, he creates his own Psalm, he recontextualizes Isaiah for his time and place, creates a montage of oracle citations (1 Ne 19:10-13). He inserts an oracle delivered at the temple (2 Ne 6-10) that was likely preached first and written down afterwards, then pulled into the mix when he crafted his actual prophetic narrative. 2 Nephi especially has the feel of disparate oracles joined together within a narrative framework.
There even appears to be a small circle of scribes that would serve as the entourage, much like in the case of Jeremiah. We can infer as much when Jacob says the following to a group in the temple:

• For I know that ye have searched much, many of you, to know of things to come; wherefore I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die; nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God. (2 Ne 9:4)

We can infer, first, that this group is part of a literate elite if they can search through the written records. And second, it's interesting that once again when written records are referenced, we get a description that only appears to describe the oracle collection. They are searching to know of "things to come," which is prophecy. Prophetic oracles. Whose oracles? What collection?

It appears to me that Nephi's prophetic books are written much later around a core group of prophecies that would have been recorded earlier.

[J Green]

Initial conclusions from the outline above:

Nevo's question entails several parts. Van der Toorn says that most of the prophets didn't write. And what I'm advocating is a scenario where a scribe became a prophet and performed the function of a scribe first for his prophet father, and then for himself. In this sense, we may see the BoM scenario as unusual or different from the biblical model van der Toorn advances.

Another part of Nevo's question, however, deals with the way the books were formed in a process that starts with recorded oracles and moves towards a reframed prophetic narrative based on the earlier oracles. In this sense I see the BoM scenario as mostly following the Jeremiah model advanced by van der Toorn. Nephi takes his prophecies that he recorded earlier and shapes them into a prophetic narrative. In doing so, his methods and practices appear similar to those of other priestly scribes who experienced the destruction of Jerusalem and obsessed over Isaiah and other prophetic oracles as they were exiled and became strangers in a strange land.

I'd love to be able to spend more time fleshing this out. I'll likely be out of the loop most of tomorrow, but I look forward to reactions from others on my application of van der Toorn's model.

Cheers

Edited January 12, 2012 by J Green

[Bill Hamblin]

Very interesting theory.

[J Green]

شكرا جزيلا يا صديقتي

[Bill Hamblin]

شكرا جزيلا يا صديقتي

افوان يا اخي

Edited January 12, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[J Green]

Bumpin' for Nevo . . .

Till Brönner style

[Calm]

Bumpin' for Nevo . . .

Till Brönner style

Very sweet.

[Nevo]

I see the BoM scenario as mostly following the Jeremiah model advanced by van der Toorn. Nephi takes his prophecies that he recorded earlier and shapes them into a prophetic narrative. In doing so, his methods and practices appear similar to those of other priestly scribes who experienced the destruction of Jerusalem and obsessed over Isaiah and other prophetic oracles as they were exiled and became strangers in a strange land.

J:

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Although there are significant differences between van der Toorn's depiction of the "scribalization" of Jeremiah's prophecies and what we find in 1 and 2 Nephi, the similarities you highlight are interesting.

However, in general, the Book of Mormon does not readily lend itself to van der Toorn's schema of scripture formation. As with Joseph Smith's other scriptural productions, the Book of Mormon takes for granted that OT prophets wrote down their messages. Consider, for example, Jacob's statement that "the scriptures...truly testify of Christ. Behold, I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ" (Jacob 7:10-11; cf. John 5:39). Of the patriarch Joseph, Nephi wrote, "he truly prophesied concerning all his seed. And the prophecies which he wrote, there are not many greater. And he prophesied concerning us, and our future generations..." (2 Nephi 4:2). This is not the picture van der Toorn gives of preexilic prophecy at all.

[mfbukowski]

افوان يا اخي

Oh yeah.

That's easy for YOU to say....

[J Green]

Hi, Nevo.

I appreciate the feedback; however, I don't think it really addresses either the main thrust of the original question or my response. Your OP was focused on the BoM prophets themselves as writers and not on their views of earlier biblical prophets as writers. You stated that in the BoM, writing prophets abound and asked the question "Or was Lehi a scribe?" Thus the focus is not on Lehi's views of Isaiah or Joseph in Egypt as scribes but on the BoM prophets as writers and the formations of their books as an anachronism vis-a-vis van der Toorn's scribalization model. My response was crafted with this context in mind. Given my own time constraints, it wasn't an exhaustive application, but I think it was enough to at least start a discussion before shifting focus from why BoM prophets wrote to what they understood about earlier biblical prophets who wrote. I think there are enough indicators, for example, to discuss Nephi's texts as having been recorded first as simply disparate oracles and then produced later along with a narrative framework in a way that is not disimilar to van der Toorn's process. So I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on that portion if you are willing to engage.

As with Joseph Smith's other scriptural productions, the Book of Mormon takes for granted that OT prophets wrote down their messages. Consider, for example, Jacob's statement that "the scriptures...truly testify of Christ. Behold, I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ" (Jacob 7:10-11; cf. John 5:39). Of the patriarch Joseph, Nephi wrote, "he truly prophesied concerning all his seed. And the prophecies which he wrote, there are not many greater. And he prophesied concerning us, and our future generations..." (2 Nephi 4:2).

I'm not sure we have enough detail to make these kind of assumptions. Let's look first at the references to the content of what has been written. Note once again that the things that are mentioned as preached or written are only prophecies. In other words, oracles. As I pointed out in my first response, this fits the description of oracle collections per van der Toorn. It is the oracles themselves that are being discussed and referenced, not a finished scribalized narrative. As the coversation progresses, I think it's important to note that there are portions of these references you see as anachronistic that do conform to the consensus model.

As for the authorship piece, I'm not sure that -- absent nuanced discussion by Jacob and Nephi themselves in the text -- we can infer their simple statements to mean what you want them to. Van der Toorn's process includes most prophetic books as originating first as a collection of oracles under the name and authority of that prophet. Note his discussion of the Book of Balaam and the Book of Micah. While even the oracles were likely collected by the scribes, the books were considered to be the product of the prophet and certainly used as a product of that product under his authority. Relevant to this line of reasoning is Van der Toorn discussion about the editors of Jeremiah inserting the command from Jeremiah to Baruch to write the oracles. While van der Toorn isn't convinced Jeremiah gave such a command, the pericope is important in establishing the text as Jeremiah's in the mind of the scribes who redacted it and those who consumed it. In the context of the ANE and the discussion by van der Toorn, I think calling Jacob and Nephi's passing reference to the "writings" of prophets as anachronistic is premature. They likely would have referred to the writings of Balaam and Micah just as casually, without providing an involved explanation of the fact that technically, the scribes did the writing.

Also absent is the discussion of the difference between what these BoM prophets knew and what they assumed. If you think ANE authors should have referenced the scribes as authors of the prophetic oracle collections as opposed to the prophets themselves as the authors (which I don't think is the case and don't even think van der Toorn affirms), you would need to discuss Nephi and Jacob's knowledge of these facts first. They aren't aware of their own extended geneology and seem in some ways to be learning from Isaiah and other scriptural texts as they go. This doesn't bode well for the kind of knowledge base on the part of Nephi and Jacob needed for this argument to have legs.

Related to this are the unanswered questions: Can Nephi assume certain things about the textual transmission of the scriptures that may not conform to reality? Can he assume things about biblical authorship (e.g., Moses) that may or may not be true? These questions are part of a larger discussion within the LDS community that has no definitive answer, but your response would assume a conclusion along certain lines.

This is not the picture van der Toorn gives of preexilic prophecy at all.

I disagree that the picture is this clear. My first response outlines both differences and similarities between the text and van der Toorns model. Without further discussion I think that analysis still has some merit.

Cheers

Edited January 17, 2012 by J Green

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As a highly related topic, I wrote a paper I keep meaning to submit to the Maxwell Institute showing that it is almost certain that Laman and Lemuel were functionally literate but did not ahve the ability read the scriptures themselves. Now don't take it, I wrote it.;-) The point though is that the evidence internally within the Book of Mormon further shows the uniqueness of Nephi and Lehi's ability to read specialized religious language.

[J Green]

Thanks, Matthew. Interesting questions regarding Laman and Lemuel. And I agree about Nephi and Lehi being unique.

[Nevo]

I think there are enough indicators, for example, to discuss Nephi's texts as having been recorded first as simply disparate oracles and then produced later along with a narrative framework in a way that is not disimilar to van der Toorn's process.

I think it is possible that Nephi overlaid a narrative framework onto an earlier collection of disparate oracles, but if this is so, I don't see anything really analogous among van der Toorn's examples. The Book of Jeremiah has a bit of biographical detail added here and there, a few Job-like laments (his "Confessions"), but generally offers very little in the way of narrative history. In contrast, 1 and 2 Nephi seems to be essentially a clan history, albeit a religiously oriented one that regularly intersperses prophetic elements (theophanies, dreams, visions, etc.). Above all, Nephi is a chronicler, the first (or is it second?) in a long line of Nephite record keepers. This is quite unlike the situation of Jeremiah and Baruch.

(I realize this brief rejoinder is probably as disappointing as the last one, but it's late and my brain is atrophying like a nut.)

[J Green]

Hi, Nevo.

No worrries on the scope of the response. I understand fully the limitations life places on message board interaction. My own participation here is usually fairly low on the priority list in comparison to family time, work, church callings, and other hobbies.

I think it is possible that Nephi overlaid a narrative framework onto an earlier collection of disparate oracles, but if this is so, I don't see anything really analogous among van der Toorn's examples. The Book of Jeremiah has a bit of biographical detail added here and there, a few Job-like laments (his "Confessions"), but generally offers very little in the way of narrative history. In contrast, 1 and 2 Nephi seems to be essentially a clan history, albeit a religiously oriented one that regularly intersperses prophetic elements (theophanies, dreams, visions, etc.). Above all, Nephi is a chronicler, the first (or is it second?) in a long line of Nephite record keepers. This is quite unlike the situation of Jeremiah and Baruch.

I would call I Nephi more of a narrative than II Nephi. And I Nephi is less of a clan history because it only really gives us the journey to the promised land, which is interesting. Nephi begins the record some thirty years after reaching the new world but gives us very few narrative portions of his clan history from that point on, aside from the fact that they left his brothers' families, built a temple, ordained priests. etc. So the focus of the narrative appears less to be the clan history (if not, why leave out thirty years?) but rather the journey itself.

But I agree that this narrative portion -- whatever it is -- is different from what little narrative framework exists for Jeremiah, and many of the other prophets except for perhaps Jonah. And there are other differences as well. For example, Jeremiah doesn't quote large excerpts of Isaiah. In some ways, Nephi's interaction with other biblical texts is more representative of the scribes at Qumran, which comes later.

But while I acknowledge that there are differences, I also think we can do a better job at recognizing the many similarities:

Call narratives

Throne theophanies

Oracles delivered at the temple (likely on Day of Atonement)

Didactic intent

Scribal intent of saving oracles for posterity

Interaction with other prophetic oracles

Clusters of citations from different prophetic oracles clustered together

Adaptation of previous prophetic oracles to their time and place

Parallels to other prophetic biographies

Parallels to Exodus and other writings

Heavy dependence on Psalms

Etc.

These are some of the main indicators that van der Toorn lists for the scribalization process, with Jeremiah as the model. I think that if you performed a textual analysis of all the prophetic books you would find many areas in all these indicators in which these books overlap and some in which they differ. Given the number of indicators that are present in Nephi's textual framework, I don't think we can point to the few differences between Nephi and Jeremiah as difinitive proof that Nephi's product isn't a good example of this process. Yes there are differences, and those differences are intriguing. Specially since I seed Nephi as having a Midianite priesthood background with clear scribal training. If this is true, what differences would we expect to see between Nephi's product and Jeremiah's?

In any case, I appreciate the discussion.

Cheers.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi, Nevo.

No worrries on the scope of the response. I understand fully the limitations life places on message board interaction. My own participation here is usually fairly low on the priority list in comparison to family time, work, church callings, and other hobbies.

I would call I Nephi more of a narrative than II Nephi. And I Nephi is less of a clan history because it only really gives us the journey to the promised land, which is interesting. Nephi begins the record some thirty years after reaching the new world but gives us very few narrative portions of his clan history from that point on, aside from the fact that they left his brothers' families, built a temple, ordained priests. etc. So the focus of the narrative appears less to be the clan history (if not, why leave out thirty years?) but rather the journey itself.

But I agree that this narrative portion -- whatever it is -- is different from what little narrative framework exists for Jeremiah, and many of the other prophets except for perhaps Jonah. And there are other differences as well. For example, Jeremiah doesn't quote large excerpts of Isaiah. In some ways, Nephi's interaction with other biblical texts is more representative of the scribes at Qumran, which comes later.

But while I acknowledge that there are differences, I also think we can do a better job at recognizing the many similarities:

Call narratives

Throne theophanies

Oracles delivered at the temple (likely on Day of Atonement)

Didactic intent

Scribal intent of saving oracles for posterity

Interaction with other prophetic oracles

Clusters of citations from different prophetic oracles clustered together

Adaptation of previous prophetic oracles to their time and place

Parallels to other prophetic biographies

Parallels to Exodus and other writings

Heavy dependence on Psalms

Etc.

These are some of the main indicators that van der Toorn lists for the scribalization process, with Jeremiah as the model. I think that if you performed a textual analysis of all the prophetic books you would find many areas in all these indicators in which these books overlap and some in which they differ. Given the number of indicators that are present in Nephi's textual framework, I don't think we can point to the few differences between Nephi and Jeremiah as difinitive proof that Nephi's product isn't a good example of this process. Yes there are differences, and those differences are intriguing. Specially since I seed Nephi as having a Midianite priesthood background with clear scribal training. If this is true, what differences would we expect to see between Nephi's product and Jeremiah's?

In any case, I appreciate the discussion.

Cheers.

The notion of a collection of oracles coming first, as recorded by those acting as scribes for their father, makes a lot of sense, whether applied to Jeremiah or Jesus.

It is easy to imagine Nephi quietly acting as scribe during a dramatic scene in which Father Lehi stood grasping his staff or bow solidly planted on the ground before him as he stared at his encampment and declaimed a lyric nasib to his eldest sons (I Nephi 2:9-10):

9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied

into the fountain of the Red Sea,

he spake unto Laman, saying:

“O that thou mightest be like unto this river,

continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!”

10 And he also spake unto Lemuel:

“O that thou mightest be like unto this valley,

firm and steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!”

Only later would such material be inserted into a narrative format.