Evidence Of Deuteronomy, Or Some Version Thereof, On The Brass Plates

[USU78]

In Deuteronomy 9:1-6, G-d speaks to the Israelites, warning them not to get big heads because they will be able to drive out the Canaanites, because it's because of the wickedness of the latter, and not Israelite righteousness, that G-d drives them out:

Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to ^apossess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and ^bfenced up to heaven, A people great and tall, the children of the ^aAnakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak! Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over ^abefore thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall ^bbring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee. Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the Lord thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my ^arighteousness the Lord hath ^bbrought me in to possess this land: but for the ^cwickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy ^arighteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a ^astiffnecked people.

An awfully Book of Mormon notion, isn't it? Consider Mormon 4:5:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the ^awicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are ^bpunished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed..

The wicked Canaanites are punished by the wicked Israelites per Deuteronomy . . . and the wicked Nephites are punished by the wicked Lamanites per Mormon.

Mormon appears here to be paraphrasing Deuteronomy 9, which, it appears to me, provides excellent evidence that the 5 books of Moses recorded on the Brass Plates, as referred to in 1 Nephi 5:11, included some Deuteronomic material as we have it today, or something quite similar thereto.

Edited August 23, 2012 by USU78

[cinepro]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=84

[USU78]

http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=84

Which is fine and dandy, except that Deuteronomy, if we accept the theory that it was pseudepigraphic, was composed no earlier than Hulda and the Josiahan Reformation, which preceded Lehi by a fair bit.

I'm not claiming, if you'll please notice the thread title, that what we have in our Bibles as Deuteronomy was in existence in exactly that form as early as ca. 600 BCE. I'm claiming that the Deuteronomists were busy getting their stuff onto the Brass Plates prior to or at least no later than the first Babylonian expedition to Judah, etc.

[cinepro]

Which is fine and dandy, except that Deuteronomy, if we accept the theory that it was pseudepigraphic, was composed no earlier than Hulda and the Josiahan Reformation, which preceded Lehi by a fair bit.

I'm not claiming, if you'll please notice the thread title, that what we have in our Bibles as Deuteronomy was in existence in exactly that form as early as ca. 600 BCE. I'm claiming that the Deuteronomists were busy getting their stuff onto the Brass Plates prior to or at least no later than the first Babylonian expedition to Judah, etc.

I don't know if Lehi had a copy of the Deureronimists' "stuff", but I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith did.

[USU78]

On sait jamais.

[Glenn101]

I don't know if Lehi had a copy of the Deureronimists' "stuff", but I'm pretty sure Joseph Smith did.

And your point is????

[Jude2]

Could a truth just be a truth, wickedness never was happiness.

[DBMormon]

And your point is????

I think he answered Pious fraud in the survey. just a guess. Cinepro is correct about the fact that this OP refers to this connection being evidence of Deutoronomy in the Brass plates, but as Cinepro points out scholars would at least have to state there are other possibilities this evidence points to. Not my thought... so don't bite my head off... just say'n

[Buzzard]

On sait jamais.

Non, on soit de temps en temps, mais pas toujours.

[Robert F. Smith]

In Deuteronomy 9:1-6, G-d speaks to the Israelites, warning them not to get big heads because they will be able to drive out the Canaanites, because it's because of the wickedness of the latter, and not Israelite righteousness, that G-d drives them out:

An awfully Book of Mormon notion, isn't it? Consider Mormon 4:5:

The wicked Canaanites are punished by the wicked Israelites per Deuteronomy . . . and the wicked Nephites are punished by the wicked Lamanites per Mormon.

Mormon appears here to be paraphrasing Deuteronomy 9, which, it appears to me, provides excellent evidence that the 5 books of Moses recorded on the Brass Plates, as referred to in 1 Nephi 5:11, included some Deuteronomic material as we have it today, or something quite similar thereto.

Posted 8 hours ago

cinepro, on 23 August 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=84

USU78:

Which is fine and dandy, except that Deuteronomy, if we accept the theory that it was pseudepigraphic, was composed no earlier than Hulda and the Josiahan Reformation, which preceded Lehi by a fair bit.

I'm not claiming, if you'll please notice the thread title, that what we have in our Bibles as Deuteronomy was in existence in exactly that form as early as ca. 600 BCE. I'm claiming that the Deuteronomists were busy getting their stuff onto the Brass Plates prior to or at least no later than the first Babylonian expedition to Judah, etc.

Were we to accept your premises, with all the updating and revising which took place (as in the Book of Mormon), nearly all the Bible would have to be considered pseudepigraphic. What we are dealing with is more effectively understood via the Documentary Hypothesis. However, that is not the central issue you raise.

See http://www.mormondia...entry1209136829 on this matter, as follows:

Aliwe, on 24 June 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

The contents of what would later be the book of Deuteronomy were "found" in the temple by Hilkiah during the reign of Josiah long before Lehi departed for Yemen. Josiah used the occasion of the "finding" of the book to call the people to renew their covenant to God. And Josiah commanded all the religious items made for Baal, Asherah, and other gods to be burned outside the city. He tore down the apartments of the prostitutes in the cult of Asherah. He also destroyed the altar to the golden calf built in Beth-El by King Rehoboam.

I said in reply:

What you say is generally true about the finding of a book of the law or covenant in the temple archives, and the consequent reforms of King Josiah -- including the formal reading of that document before the people, who then renewed their covenant, etc. Scholars do believe that this document formed the core of the future book of Deuteronomy (which comes into existence in Post-Exilic times), but they also connect this future book with the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian -- who conducts a major revision of the biblical canon. We simply do not know the contents of the core of that D-work.

What is truly remarkable about the D-work is that it systematically excludes mention of Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. The Bible as we have received it does not speak with one voice, but is an anthology of competing traditions: Priestly, Prophetic, Poetic/liturgical, Wisdom, etc.

What is interesting are the cases in which Lehi immediately follows the ancient Patriarchal and Exodus tradition available to him on the Brass Plates (I Nephi 2:7) and ignores later Deuteronomic rules, such as the prohibition in Deut 12:13-15. The legal code in Exodus 20:24 did not make obligatory a single cult center (Jerusalem), and did not argue that one could sacrifice nowhere else. Sacrifices could be performed anywhere, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sacrificed in every place where they found or sought God’s presence.¹

Some, following Margaret Barker,² have taken a more informative tack, suggesting that the Deuteronomistic revision of the Hebrew Canon removed what would later become authentic Christian elements and which was already present on the Brass Plates of Laban.³

--------------------------

¹ See Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 16, 33-34.

² Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in J. Welch, D. Seely, and A. Seely, eds., Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (FARMS, 2004), 523-542; Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (SPCK, 1987), reviewed by G. Nicklesburg in JBL, 109 (1990), 335-337; Barker, Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (SPCK, 2011).

³ Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004), 59-90, online at http://farms.byu.edu...16&num=2&id=547 .

[Robert F. Smith]

Non, on soit de temps en temps, mais pas toujours.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

[mfbukowski]

Never mind

Edited August 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Wait a minute..... Did we change this into a French board?

I could throw out some Polish and then we could all communicate really well, because everyone knows that God's first language is Polish!

Scho???? Breshesh.

Shto???? Vryosh.

Mah??? Sheqer muhlat.

[robuchan]

Yes, this is evidence Mormon had a copy of Deuteronomy, bullseye. Have you also proven that Moroni had a copy of Corinthians?

[USU78]

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Aupres de ma blonde . . . qu'il fait bon, fait bon, fait bon . . .

[USU78]

Posted 8 hours ago

cinepro, on 23 August 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=84

Were we to accept your premises, with all the updating and revising which took place (as in the Book of Mormon), nearly all the Bible would have to be considered pseudepigraphic. What we are dealing with is more effectively understood via the Documentary Hypothesis. However, that is not the central issue you raise.

See http://www.mormondia...entry1209136829 on this matter, as follows:

I said in reply:

What is interesting are the cases in which Lehi immediately follows the ancient Patriarchal and Exodus tradition available to him on the Brass Plates (I Nephi 2:7) and ignores later Deuteronomic rules, such as the prohibition in Deut 12:13-15. The legal code in Exodus 20:24 did not make obligatory a single cult center (Jerusalem), and did not argue that one could sacrifice nowhere else. Sacrifices could be performed anywhere, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sacrificed in every place where they found or sought God’s presence.¹

Some, following Margaret Barker,² have taken a more informative tack, suggesting that the Deuteronomistic revision of the Hebrew Canon removed what would later become authentic Christian elements and which was already present on the Brass Plates of Laban.³

--------------------------

¹ See Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 16, 33-34.

² Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in J. Welch, D. Seely, and A. Seely, eds., Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (FARMS, 2004), 523-542; Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (SPCK, 1987), reviewed by G. Nicklesburg in JBL, 109 (1990), 335-337; Barker, Temple Mysticism: An Introduction (SPCK, 2011).

³ Kevin Christensen, “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament,” FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004), 59-90, online at http://farms.byu.edu...16&num=2&id=547 .

Actually . . . it ain't my premise: I was allowing for the possibility that the version of the Deuteronomy on the Brass Plates, might have been a late production. I wasn't asserting for it.

[volgadon]

Never mind

Veni, vidi, vici.

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes, this is evidence Mormon had a copy of Deuteronomy, bullseye. Have you also proven that Moroni had a copy of Corinthians?

Not just a version of Deuteronomy. The First Temple and Jerusalem 600 BCE convergence is much wider and more complex than some quotations and awareness. Those who know the broad and deep convergences don't treat the Book of Mormon like a a bubble to be burst with the merest pin-prick.

As far as Corinthians and Moroni on "faith, hope, and charity," Nibley has talked about that, in his "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" essay, as well as later in the Teachings of the Book of Mormon lectures:

Incidentally, Paul's definition is quoted in the Book of Mormon. It's a long one. But Paul was quoting another work. He was quoting an old hermetic work on the subject. Richard Reitzenstein and some others showed that some years ago, and it's typical of the hermetic writings. In fact, yesterday I was reading an apocalyptic work I'd never read before, and it gives exactly the same analysis of charity. This was a very common theme, not only with the philosophers. We know, especially from recent research, that Paul quoted all over the place. He quoted about every classical writer you can name. Possibly half the statements in Paul are quotations from the classics, from the orators, from the plays, etc., Paul quoted all over the place; he was a very learned man. What he's quoting here [in 1 Corinthians 13] is from an ancient writing, and it's quoted here in the Book of Mormon. Where we find it is in the hermetic writings which were taken over from the Jews at a very early time. Remember, [Moroni] was going through the records now and picking out the best things. So he picked Paul's definition. It's the best thing you can find [on charity].

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=119&chapid=1432

If an important concept is expressed in a memorable way, it is far more likely to get quoted and remembered, even after the original source is lost and forgotten. And Moroni post dates Paul, and reports face to face communication with one of Paul's most important sources. See Ether 12.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

Not just a version of Deuteronomy. The First Temple and Jerusalem 600 BCE convergence is much wider and more complex than some quotations and awareness. Those who know the broad and deep convergences don't treat the Book of Mormon like a a bubble to be burst with the merest pin-prick.

As far as Corinthians and Moroni on "faith, hope, and charity," Nibley has talked about that, in his "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" essay, as well as later in the Teachings of the Book of Mormon lectures:

http://maxwellinstit...119&chapid=1432

If an important concept is expressed in a memorable way, it is far more likely to get quoted and remembered, even after the original source is lost and forgotten. And Moroni post dates Paul, and reports face to face communication with one of Paul's most important sources. See Ether 12.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

When Nibley says

Where we find it is in the hermetic writings which were taken over from the Jews at a very early time.

how early is he talking? Source?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just go for the real stuff USU78 - see 1 Nephi 22:20 and 3 Nephi 20:23 and 1 Nephi 10:4 in comparison to Deuteronomy 18:15. That ones about as easy to see as you get ....

What's more interesting, of course, is that Dt. 9:1-6 is considered pretty universally as being a part of proto-Deuteronomy (pre-exilic), and not one of the later redactions to that text (as was, say, 9:7-10:11 - the recounting of the golden calf incident).

Ben M.

[Kevin Christensen]

When Nibley says

how early is he talking? Source?

This is the footnote to his discussion of the issue in "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" in The Prophetic Book of Mormon has this:

Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

Nibley's main point is that when Paul says something, you ought to be aware that he quotes a great deal, and that you should not assume that he was the first and only person to say something.

Also relevant is something I noticed after reading Thomasson and Hawkin's essay on "Surivor Witness in the Book of Mormon," and seeing Moroni in that mold, and then later reading John Douglas' book Mindhunter. The the final chapter, after wading through stories of serial killers, FBI profiler Douglas ends up by talking about charity. The shift in tone in Douglas' book struck me as exactly parallel to what happens in the Book of Mormon, a very compasionate and very human response to the kinds of experience they suffered. Simple plagiarism is not the only possible explanation for parallels. Common experience, including common inspiration of various types, can and should be considered.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[USU78]

What's more interesting, of course, is that Dt. 9:1-6 is considered pretty universally as being a part of proto-Deuteronomy (pre-exilic), and not one of the later redactions to that text (as was, say, 9:7-10:11 - the recounting of the golden calf incident).

That's what I thought . . . and that's what I was getting at.

Dang yer good at this stuff.

I bring this up because, like the "*Proto-Deuteronomy" material cited, we have cited elsewhere in Nephi's two books, and elsewhere, material lifted from Deuteroisaiah. I have a theory that I've been stewing on for many years now, but have yet to see anybody come up with support therefor: that the Deutero-Isaiah citations in the BoM are actually pulled from a pre-exilic *Proto-Deutero-Isaiah, the fact that the material is preserved on the pre-exilic Brass Plates being **best evidence of the bounds of their production date.

If the documentary theory is consistent with the BoM WRT *Proto-Deuteronomy, why not *Proto-Deutero-Isaiah?

**Yes, I know, the boo-birds won't take this seriously, and I don't much care . . . I'm addressing the faithful student of these matters who has to put the problem of Deutero-Isaiah on the Brass Plates problem on the shelf while fishing other waters.

Edited August 24, 2012 by USU78

[ANACO]

Posted 8 hours ago

What is interesting are the cases in which Lehi immediately follows the ancient Patriarchal and Exodus tradition available to him on the Brass Plates (I Nephi 2:7) and ignores later Deuteronomic rules, such as the prohibition in Deut 12:13-15. The legal code in Exodus 20:24 did not make obligatory a single cult center (Jerusalem), and did not argue that one could sacrifice nowhere else. Sacrifices could be performed anywhere, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sacrificed in every place where they found or sought God’s presence.¹

Yet in Deuteronomy we read in Chapter 12:21

21

If the place which the

Lord

thy God hath chosen to put his name there

be too far from thee

, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the

Lord

hath given thee, as I have commanded thee....

27

And thou shalt offer thy

a

burnt

offerings, the

b

flesh

and the blood, upon the altar of the

Lord

thy God:

So it appears Lehi was following an observation found in Deuteronomy, indicating he had the latter on the Plates of Brass.

He also seems to be following some three day rule after leaving Jerusalem then offering sacrifice: 1 Nephi 2:6-7 compared to Exodus 3:18, 5:3, & 8:27

Edited August 24, 2012 by ANACO

[Robert F. Smith]

Yet in Deuteronomy we read in Chapter 12:21

21

If the place which the

Lord

thy God hath chosen to put his name there

be too far from thee

, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the

Lord

hath given thee, as I have commanded thee....

27

And thou shalt offer thy

a

burnt

offerings, the

b

flesh

and the blood, upon the altar of the

Lord

thy God:

So it appears Lehi was following an observation found in Deuteronomy, indicating he had the latter on the Plates of Brass.

He also seems to be following some three day rule after leaving Jerusalem then offering sacrifice: 1 Nephi 2:6-7 compared to Exodus 3:18, 5:3, & 8:27

The three-day rule is merely supposition. Exodus is not instructing that one must be three days from Jerusalem or from a not-yet-built tabernacle, but rather setting a kind of "three-mile-limet" rule of being well outside Egypt, i.e., outside the territorial limit set by God..

The other problem is that we have no real idea what was in fact on the book of the law of the Lord found in the temple archives by Hilkiah the high priest. What parts of the Second Law (Deuteronomy) were available to be copied into the Brass Plates? He may have had something like Deut 12:21,27, but he did not need it because he already had Patriarchal tradition. The same applies to the building of a small version of Solomon's Temple in the New World. That was no more permissible than the Jewish temple built at Elephantine, Egypt, at around the same time. Josiah destroyed or decommissioned all sanctuaries and high places which competed with Jerusalem. Clan Lehi clearly exists outside that Deuteronomic system.

[robuchan]

This is the footnote to his discussion of the issue in "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" in The Prophetic Book of Mormon has this:

Richard Reitzenstein, "Die Entstehung der Formel 'Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung,' " Historische Zeitschrift 116 (1916): 189–208. Isidore Levy, "Sur I Corinth. II. 9 et l'apocalypse d'Elie," Revue des Etudes Juives 82 (1926): 161–63.

Nibley's main point is that when Paul says something, you ought to be aware that he quotes a great deal, and that you should not assume that he was the first and only person to say something.

Also relevant is something I noticed after reading Thomasson and Hawkin's essay on "Surivor Witness in the Book of Mormon," and seeing Moroni in that mold, and then later reading John Douglas' book Mindhunter. The the final chapter, after wading through stories of serial killers, FBI profiler Douglas ends up by talking about charity. The shift in tone in Douglas' book struck me as exactly parallel to what happens in the Book of Mormon, a very compasionate and very human response to the kinds of experience they suffered. Simple plagiarism is not the only possible explanation for parallels. Common experience, including common inspiration of various types, can and should be considered.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I disagree that Nibley's "main" point was that Paul was reflecting on previously written documents that may or not be ancient enough to be included in the Brass Plates. Nibley's very clear that his theory and the source he references suggests Paul and Moroni have a common, ancient source. You brought this up with me to make the same point.

We have had this discussion before, and as I recall it was demonstrated by others and accepted by you that there is no identifiable ancient source that the sermon on faith, hope, charity are borrowed from. There is a source from the Classical Greek period that could be possibly Paul's source.

I think this might be a case of where Nibley fakes his sources.