Learning Of The Jews, Language Of The Egyptians

[Bernard Gui]

Thank you for the helpful information.

May we give Joseph Smith a rep point for describing a Jewish family at the time of Lehi who could

read and write a form of Egyptian since this unusual detail was not something he would have gotten from the Bible or another source available to him? This was the intent of the OP.

Why do you separate the locations of Lehi's home and the land of his inheritance? I don't see that clear distinction in 1 Nephi 2:4, and 3:16,22, but apparently it could be read that way. I would assume his house with all his possessions should be built on his inherited land, not at another secret location. I note the use of down to their land and up to Laban's house, but I don't know which way they would go up or down. Does it mean elevation gain? The Manassah inheritance being north, would that be down from Jersalem? Is this your basis?

1 Nephi 2:4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

3: 16,22 Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; therefore let us go down to the land of our father’s inheritance, for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches. And all this he hath done because of the commandments of the Lord....And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

My question was if there is evidence that other Jews did what Lehi did.....taught his family Egyptian. I'm not sure how to take your joke.

I was just being silly (and apparently unfunny!). It was a great question and it looks like you've got some great answers!

[St. Bookmark]

I look forward to learning more

[strappinglad]

We also have no idea what Ishmael and all his family brought to the table. Were they just tag- alongs and breeding stock? I doubt it.

[Bernard Gui]

I was just being silly (and apparently unfunny!). It was a great question and it looks like you've got some great answers!

I've laid many an egg in my time....Sister Gui will attest to that.

[Bernard Gui]

For the argument that Lehi (and Nephi) were metalsmiths, see http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=3. As Chadwick notes, "to possess gold was very rare—gold was not used as a medium of common monetary exchange. For Lehi to possess both gold and silver suggests that he worked with gold, which in turn suggests gold smithing." Furthermore, "expertise in smithing precious metals such as silver and gold, particularly in smithing iron and hardening it into steel, is not something a person picked up as a hobby or sideline skill. Smithing, and in particular iron and steel smithing, was the high-tech profession of Lehi's day—the period that archaeologists call Iron Age II. Evidence of Lehi's and Nephi's expertise in all sorts of metals—in other words, evidence that smithing was their profession—is found in several passages of Nephi's writings."

Being the village smithy would explain Nephi's massive forearms in the Friberg paintings of the family on the ship and at the forge. Edited May 27, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Nevo]

I will admit upfront that the evidence is slim, but we have more than hieratic numerals, and the various scraps of hieratic script we have only make sense if we assume that a full hieratic writing tradition existed within Israel/Judah (per David Calabro's MA thesis).

 

Thanks for pointing me to Calabro's MA thesis. I wasn't aware of his work in this area. I haven't read the full thesis yet but I did find his article, "The Hieratic Scribal Tradition in Preexilic Judah," which he describes as a shortened version of his thesis.

 

I see what you mean by the evidence being slim. Calabro identifies two hieratic alphabetic signs (the signs for arm and horned viper) in two lines of ostracon Tell Qudeirat 6. He describes this as a "new reading" and notes that, if correct, "this would then be the first example of hieratic uniliteral signs in late monarchic Judah" (p. 82).

 

Calabro concludes: "The convergence of Hebrew script, large hieratic numerals, and (as I propose) hieratic alphabetic signs in the scribal exercise found on Tell Qudeirat 6 points to an extensive hieratic component in the scribal education of Judahites" (p. 82). Nadav Na'aman, on the other hand, thinks the mixed Semitic/hieratic writing on the ostraca at Tell Qudeirat may simply indicate that the site was under Egyptian control at that point (see, Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah," Tel Aviv 18 [1991]: 48).

 

Calabro believes that the three inscriptions he discusses "indicate that the hieratic tradition in Judah lasted in a fuller form than only the isolated use of numbers and units of measurement. In particular, it included hieratic alphabetic signs, logographic signs for commodities like wine and barley, and Egyptian conventions of sign sequence. This means that the system overlapped in some ways with alphabetic script and could, at least potentially, have been put to use for purposes other than simple accounting" (p. 83).

 

I guess if we're looking for a minimal level of plausibility for 1 Nephi 1:2, we've found it. According to Calabro, it's possible that hieratic could have been used for purposes other than accounting. But there is no extant evidence that this was ever the case.

 

(BTW, do you have any thoughts on how the Brass Plates ended up in Egyptian?)

Edited May 27, 2015 by Nevo

[nealr]

Thanks for pointing me to Calabro's MA thesis. I wasn't aware of his work in this area. I haven't read the full thesis yet but I did find his article, "The Hieratic Scribal Tradition in Preexilic Judah," which he describes as a shortened version of his thesis.

 

I see what you mean by the evidence being slim. Calabro identifies two hieratic alphabetic signs (the signs for arm and horned viper) in two lines of ostracon Tell Qudeirat 6. He describes this as a "new reading" and notes that, if correct, "this would then be the first example of hieratic uniliteral signs in late monarchic Judah" (p. 82).

 

Calabro concludes: "The convergence of Hebrew script, large hieratic numerals, and (as I propose) hieratic alphabetic signs in the scribal exercise found on Tell Qudeirat 6 points to an extensive hieratic component in the scribal education of Judahites" (p. 82). Nadav Na'aman, on the other hand, thinks the mixed Semitic/hieratic writing on the ostraca at Tell Qudeirat may simply indicate that the site was under Egyptian control at that point (see, Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah," Tel Aviv 18 [1991]: 48).

 

Calabro believes that the three inscriptions he discusses "indicate that the hieratic tradition in Judah lasted in a fuller form than only the isolated use of numbers and units of measurement. In particular, it included hieratic alphabetic signs, logographic signs for commodities like wine and barley, and Egyptian conventions of sign sequence. This means that the system overlapped in some ways with alphabetic script and could, at least potentially, have been put to use for purposes other than simple accounting" (p. 83).

 

I guess if we're looking for a minimal level of plausibility for 1 Nephi 1:2, we've found it. According to Calabro, it's possible that hieratic could have been used for purposes other than accounting. But there is no extant evidence that this was ever the case.

 

(BTW, do you have any thoughts on how the Brass Plates ended up in Egyptian?)

 

I've seen plenty of well respected scholars of the ancient Near East put forward bolder conclusions on even thinner evidence. It is just how things are there. I would point you to Robert Smith's post (#25) for mention of the views of non-LDS scholars. In any case, as slim as the evidence is, it goes a lot further than the 19th century does to providing some context for 1 Nephi 1:2. The very idea of Jews writing in Egyptian 1830 was viewed as utterly absurd, to say nothing of the odd phrasing "learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians". What could that possibly mean in a 19th century context? 

 

As for the Brass Plates, my personal view is that they were started by Joseph of Egypt, and he wrote in Egyptian (Hebrew as a written language did not exist until sometime later). If you don't think Joseph of Egypt was a real person, or that no Israelite writings existed until the 1 millennium BC (both more mainstream views of scholarship), then my explanation would simply be that it was started as a clan record by a specific Israelite family that claimed lineage through Joseph of Egypt, and to enhance such claims they wrote prophecies attributed to Joseph, and wrote those prophecies in Egyptian to make it seem more authentic. Most scholars date Israelite incorporation of hieratic to the 10th century BC. Calabro and Seth Sanders both push those dates back even further, ca. 1200-1500 BC. So I don't find it terribly unbelievable that a clan of Israelites claiming lineage back to Joseph of Egypt used Egyptian to keep a record over the centuries. 

[Nevo]

In any case, as slim as the evidence is, it goes a lot further than the 19th century does to providing some context for 1 Nephi 1:2. The very idea of Jews writing in Egyptian 1830 was viewed as utterly absurd, to say nothing of the odd phrasing "learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians". What could that possibly mean in a 19th century context?

 

I think the idea of Jews of Nephi's era composing long first-person accounts in Egyptian (or in Hebrew using Egyptian writing) is probably still seen as absurd. When Robert refers to "the widespread use of hieratic Egyptian in Israel and Judah before and during the lifetime of Lehi" let's be clear that what we're talking about here is the use of hieratic numerals and units of measurement for counting grain measures and so on. As Calabro acknowledges, there are in fact no extant examples of hieratic Egyptian being used outside of accounting contexts in late 7th-century/early 6th-century Judah. Now it may have been and we just don't know about it due to the fragmentary nature of what has survived, but I don't think we can say at this point that what Nephi is doing fits perfectly with what we know about the time and place. It may, in fact, be wholly unprecedented. Aside from the novelty of writing in Egyptian, Judahite scribes of the time didn't typically write in their own name (or on metal plates). According to Karel van der Toorn, "authors" per se didn't emerge until the Hellenistic era; before then, anonymity was customary (see Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], 39). Indeed, as Konrad Schmid notes, "the first author of a biblical book who is known to us by name appears only around 180 B.C.E. in the person of Jesus Sirach (Sir 50:27–29)" (Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 23).

 

If you want me to speculate about how 1 Nephi 1:2 could possibly fit a nineteenth-century context, I think you're probably aware that "Egyptomania" was very much a part of Joseph Smith's culture in the 1820s and later. As Samuel M. Brown describes it, "antebellum America at times seemed to hum with Egyptomania. . . . For many nineteenth-century Americans, Egypt represented a crucial source of human culture and civilization, particularly though not exclusively in its intersections with ancient biblical culture. Egypt was the source of writing, the arts, astronomy, and magic. Masons and others sought wisdom from the priest-god Hermes (Thoth), while various writers saw Egypt as one important source of ancient American civilization, citing Native mummies, Mesoamerican petroglyphs, and other artifacts that seemed reminiscent of Egypt" (Brown, "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden," Church History 78 [2009]: 42–43). Given this context, the Book of Mormon's account of descendants of Joseph of Egypt coming to America, establishing a civilization, and keeping a record in Egyptian doesn't strike me as particularly outlandish. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................... 

Why do you separate the locations of Lehi's home and the land of his inheritance? I don't see that clear distinction in 1 Nephi 2:4, and 3:16,22, but apparently it could be read that way. I would assume his house with all his possessions should be built on his inherited land, not at another secret location. I note the use of down to their land and up to Laban's house, but I don't know which way they would go up or down. Does it mean elevation gain? The Manassah inheritance being north, would that be down from Jersalem? Is this your basis?

Even though he spends most of his life at Jerusalem, Jeremiah has the land of his inheritance at Anathoth in Benjamin (Jer 32:7-10, 37:12).  However, I don't know whether Lehi's inheritance was in Manasseh.  Why did Joseph let those 116 pages out of his hands?!

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the idea of Jews of Nephi's era composing long first-person accounts in Egyptian (or in Hebrew using Egyptian writing) is probably still seen as absurd. When Robert refers to "the widespread use of hieratic Egyptian in Israel and Judah before and during the lifetime of Lehi" let's be clear that what we're talking about here is the use of hieratic numerals and units of measurement for counting grain measures and so on. As Calabro acknowledges, there are in fact no extant examples of hieratic Egyptian being used outside of accounting contexts in late  7th-century/early 6th-century Judah.

With that proviso, I agree.  However, Calabro and you should add that we have examples of hieratic also in North Israel.

 

........................................................ It may, in fact, be wholly unprecedented. Aside from the novelty of writing in Egyptian, Judahite scribes of the time didn't typically write in their own name (or on metal plates). According to Karel van der Toorn, "authors" per se didn't emerge until the Hellenistic era; before then, anonymity was customary (see Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007], 39). Indeed, as Konrad Schmid notes, "the first author of a biblical book who is known to us by name appears only around 180 B.C.E. in the person of Jesus Sirach (Sir 50:27–29)" (Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 23).

...............................................................................................................

David Bokovoy likewise objects that the Bible doesn’t exhibit any first-person accounts such as are found throughout the Book of Mormon.^[1]  However, we are discussing a document engraved in Egyptian by trained scribes, and ancient Egyptian literature features a plethora of first-person narrative accounts, such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe,^[2] Dispute of a Man with His Ba,^[3] and many autobiographical tomb inscriptions, such as those of Weni the Elder,^[4] Harkhuf,^[5] Ahmose son of Ebana,^[6]  and Ahmose Pen-Nekhebet,^[7] aside from all the first person songs, such as the Songs of the Harpers,^[8] which have their parallel in the biblical Song of Songs.

^[1] Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, 3 vols. (SLC: Kofford, 2013-  ), I:193-194, claiming that “we do not have any type of record from the world of the Bible comparable to the Book of Mormon in which named narrators present their true history as a type of autobiographical narrative” – citing K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, 117.

 

^[2] Context of Scripture,  3 vols. (Brill, 1997-2002), I:77-84,89-93.

 

^[3] COS, III:321-325; cf. TPPI, 17,5; 20,4, and Urkunden VII, 2.9.

 

^[4] Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (UC Press, 1973). I:18ff; 6^th dynasty.

 

^[5] Lichtheim, AEL, I:23-27; 6^th dynasty.

 

^[6] Lichtheim, AEL (UC Press, 1975), II:12ff; 18^th dynasty.

 

^[7] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, II, §§ 17ff., 40ff; 18^th dynasty.

 

^[8] COS, I:48-50, of Intef, Neferhotep, etc.

[mfbukowski]

 

David Bokovoy likewise objects that the Bible doesn’t exhibit any first-person accounts such as are found throughout the Book of Mormon.^[1]  However, we are discussing a document engraved in Egyptian by trained scribes, and ancient Egyptian literature features a plethora of first-person narrative accounts, such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe,^[2] Dispute of a Man with His Ba,^[3] and many autobiographical tomb inscriptions, such as those of Weni the Elder,^[4] Harkhuf,^[5] Ahmose son of Ebana,^[6]  and Ahmose Pen-Nekhebet,^[7] aside from all the first person songs, such as the Songs of the Harpers,^[8] which have their parallel in the biblical Song of Songs.

^[1] Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, 3 vols. (SLC: Kofford, 2013-  ), I:193-194, claiming that “we do not have any type of record from the world of the Bible comparable to the Book of Mormon in which named narrators present their true history as a type of autobiographical narrative” – citing K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, 117.

 

^[2] Context of Scripture,  3 vols. (Brill, 1997-2002), I:77-84,89-93.

 

^[3] COS, III:321-325; cf. TPPI, 17,5; 20,4, and Urkunden VII, 2.9.

 

^[4] Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (UC Press, 1973). I:18ff; 6^th dynasty.

 

^[5] Lichtheim, AEL, I:23-27; 6^th dynasty.

 

^[6] Lichtheim, AEL (UC Press, 1975), II:12ff; 18^th dynasty.

 

^[7] Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, II, §§ 17ff., 40ff; 18^th dynasty.

 

^[8] COS, I:48-50, of Intef, Neferhotep, etc.

 

Posts with footnotes.

 

Amazing!

[Robert F. Smith]

Posts with footnotes.

 

Amazing!

I have been writing a review of Bokovoy's excellent book, including a close look at some of his errors.

[Bernard Gui]

I was just being silly (and apparently unfunny!). It was a great question and it looks like you've got some great answers!

Rereading my poorly written question with the ambiguous "others".....now I get your joke, and it's pretty good. 

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks to all for taking the time to answer my questions. 

[Bernard Gui]

Thanks to all for taking the time to answer my questions and expanding the discussion. 

[Nevo]

David Bokovoy likewise objects that the Bible doesn’t exhibit any first-person accounts such as are found throughout the Book of Mormon.[1]  However, we are discussing a document engraved in Egyptian by trained scribes, and ancient Egyptian literature features a plethora of first-person narrative accounts, such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe,[2] Dispute of a Man with His Ba,[3] and many autobiographical tomb inscriptions, such as those of Weni the Elder,[4] Harkhuf,[5] Ahmose son of Ebana,[6]  and Ahmose Pen-Nekhebet,[7] aside from all the first person songs, such as the Songs of the Harpers,[8] which have their parallel in the biblical Song of Songs.

 

Hi Robert,

 

I don't think most of your examples answer David's objection that "we do not have any type of record from the world of the Bible comparable to the Book of Mormon in which named narrators present their true history as a type of autobiographical narrative." The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe, and Dispute of a Man with His Ba are not actual autobiographical accounts. They're fictional stories. The autobiographical tomb inscriptions come closer to what Nephi is doing, but they don't seem a likely model for the Small Plates. Nephi isn't simply writing his epitaph. He's self-consciously authoring a book—part personal narrative, part exhortation—that he hopes will lead people to believe in Christ and endure to the end. I think we have to admit that this is unusual behavior for the time and place.

[nealr]

I think the idea of Jews of Nephi's era composing long first-person accounts in Egyptian (or in Hebrew using Egyptian writing) is probably still seen as absurd. When Robert refers to "the widespread use of hieratic Egyptian in Israel and Judah before and during the lifetime of Lehi" let's be clear that what we're talking about here is the use of hieratic numerals and units of measurement for counting grain measures and so on. As Calabro acknowledges, there are in fact no extant examples of hieratic Egyptian being used outside of accounting contexts in late 7th-century/early 6th-century Judah. Now it may have been and we just don't know about it due to the fragmentary nature of what has survived, but I don't think we can say at this point that what Nephi is doing fits perfectly with what we know about the time and place. It may, in fact, be wholly unprecedented. 

 

You have attached a lot more baggage to the argument than what I professed to be dealing with here. Long-first person narratives, specifically in Egyptian, are a much larger issue of which the specific phrasing of 1 Nephi 1:2 ("the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians") is only a small part. All I have had in mind is the small part--the phrasing of 1 Nephi 1:2 and what that could possibly mean.

 

Looking in the late monarchaic period of Judah, we find samples of Judaic texts that use Egyptian script with Egyptian meanings. In trying to create a context for those documents, Calabro argues that there must have been a broader hieratic writing system known and employed by Israelite scribes. Related views, which are widely held by scholars are that (a) the use of hieratic among the Israeliates dates back to the 10th century BC, or possibly even earlier, and (b) that there must have been substantial contact between Israelite and Egyptian scribes (the point I meaning to highlight in mentioning Robert's post). There is no actual physical evidence for Israelite use of hieratic as early as the 10th century BC, or for contact between Egyptian and Israelite scribes. But these are conclusions are widely accepted as being necessitated by the scraps of evidence we have. So the fact that we don't have examples of wider use of hieratic is not the issue for me. It is that the fragmentary use of hieratic makes more sense if there was a larger tradition of using hieratic Egyptian writing. This especially makes sense in light of the idea that Israelite and Egyptian scribes were directly interacting: we would expect the Israelites to pick up more than simply numerals and measurements.

 

From the context that Calabro creates for these, supplemented with the observations others have made about the use of hieratic among the Israelites, I argue that we have a context wherein it makes sense to talk about the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." We can apply how hieratic is used by Judaic scribes, how is it different from Egyptian use of hieratic, etc., to give meaning to the statement "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." 

 

If you want me to speculate about how 1 Nephi 1:2 could possibly fit a nineteenth-century context, I think you're probably aware that "Egyptomania" was very much a part of Joseph Smith's culture in the 1820s and later. As Samuel M. Brown describes it, "antebellum America at times seemed to hum with Egyptomania. . . . For many nineteenth-century Americans, Egypt represented a crucial source of human culture and civilization, particularly though not exclusively in its intersections with ancient biblical culture. Egypt was the source of writing, the arts, astronomy, and magic. Masons and others sought wisdom from the priest-god Hermes (Thoth), while various writers saw Egypt as one important source of ancient American civilization, citing Native mummies, Mesoamerican petroglyphs, and other artifacts that seemed reminiscent of Egypt" (Brown, "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden," Church History 78 [2009]: 42–43). Given this context, the Book of Mormon's account of descendants of Joseph of Egypt coming to America, establishing a civilization, and keeping a record in Egyptian doesn't strike me as particularly outlandish. 

 

 

Notice, however, the lack of attention to detailed required here. Here is what I said about the 19th century context previously:

 

The very idea of Jews writing in Egyptian 1830 was viewed as utterly absurd, to say nothing of the odd phrasing "learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians". What could that possibly mean in a 19th century context? 

 

 

You suggested Egyptomania. Sam Brown even suggests that they saw "Egypt as one important source of ancient American civilization." Seems like a really great context, until we try to deal with specifics. None of this actually supports the idea of Jews writing in Egyptian, an idea which we really don't have to wonder about because we see it explicitly rejected and ridiculed in reaction to the Book of Mormon. If this is the context for the Book of Mormon, why not just have Egyptians rather than Israelites come to America? More to the point, this does not really answer my question. What could "learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians" possibly mean in a 19th century context? Egyptomania might explain why someone like Joseph Smith would opt to claim the record was in Egyptian, but why have Israelites writing in Egyptian? What would it mean to him and his audience to write Egyptian according to "the learning of the Jews"?

 

You may not feel like you need to find an exact analogue to the idea of Israelites writing in Egyptian to provide context, but that is exactly what you are demanding of the ancient context. You seem to basically be saying that sans any exact analogue to Nephi's record, we don't have a context in 7th century BC. But all of the classic works of literature are in some (and sometimes many) ways "unusual" for their time. The issue is not about finding an exact analogue, it is about making sense of what we have in the text. The more specific and detailed we can get in that, the better. I'm not asking for you or anyone else to show me the phrasing of 1 Nephi 1:2 in some other document, I'm asking for someone to give it meaning in a 19th century context. What could Joseph Smith think he was describing when he said that? What could he expect his audience to read into it? How does that setting clarify the phrase? Egyptomania does not seem to help me answer these questions. 

 

Now, it must be admitted that we have way more documentation for the 19th century American frontier than we do 7th century Judah. So it should be easier to fashion meaningful contexts from the 19th century sources, especially if that is the actual context within which it was written. And it should be extremely difficult to fashion a meaningful context from 7th/6th century BC Judah, especially if the text is not really from that setting. I can give the specific phrasing of 1 Nephi 1:2 meaning in the historical context of Judah ca. 600 BC. I can't do that with the 19th century, not even in light of Egyptomania. 

 

Though it is beyond the point I am trying to make in this thread, since this will probably be my last post on here, I want to add some quick thoughts on the issue of first person narratives. 

 

I don't think most of your examples answer David's objection that "we do not have any type of record from the world of the Bible comparable to the Book of Mormon in which named narrators present their true history as a type of autobiographical narrative." The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe, and Dispute of a Man with His Ba are not actual autobiographical accounts. They're fictional stories. The autobiographical tomb inscriptions come closer to what Nephi is doing, but they don't seem a likely model for the Small Plates. Nephi isn't simply writing his epitaph. He's self-consciously authoring a book—part personal narrative, part exhortation—that he hopes will lead people to believe in Christ and endure to the end. I think we have to admit that this is unusual behavior for the time and place.

 

 

As I mentioned, on some level, great literary works always involve some "unusual behavior for the time and place." Obviously, whoever wrote the first legitimate autobiography (or the first anything) was doing something "unusual for their time" when they did it. However, I'm not sure this is really all that unusual.

 

First, that all the Egyptian first person narratives are fiction is debatable. I haven't dug in-depth, but I am pretty sure there are some scholars who argue for at least some of these texts as historical accounts. Whether they are or not, however, is beside the point. The point is first-person  (or "autobiographical") narrative was a common form widely employed in the ancient Near East. In fact, I've found that scholars whose emphasis is more toward ancient Near Eastern literature rather than just Hebrew bible feel a need to explain the oddity of third-person narrative found in the Bible. It is "unusual for the time and place" when contextualized more broadly. 

 

So, assuming that Nephi was exposed to Egyptian literature, it does not seem unusual that he would choose first-person narrative. Why would it matter to him that all previous examples of such were fiction? (Would he even know that they were fiction? Is that a genre classification that would even make sense to him?) He felt that his own experiences were worth recording, and he was the scribe so he had to write them himself. 

 

Lastly, I would not be so quick to assume the autobiographical tomb inscriptions are an unlikely model. They were texts written in reflection of past life experience on a permanent medium meant to stand as a testament of the individual's life. That does not sound to terribly far off from what Nephi was trying to do. Obviously there is a difference in length--it is true he is not just writing his epitaph. But he is writing about his past life experience, and doing it on a permanent medium wanting it to serve and longstanding testament of his life and experiences. It could even be argued that it was finished close to the end of his life (2 Nephi 33 seems to be written with his death clearly in view).

 

Anyway, as I said, this is probably my last post. I've several other things I need to be doing. It's been fun!  

[Nevo]

Anyway, as I said, this is probably my last post. I've several other things I need to be doing. It's been fun!  

 

As always, I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Especially as you've studied these subjects much more thoroughly than I have. I look forward to reading your forthcoming article in Interpreter.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Hi Robert,

 

I don't think most of your examples answer David's objection that "we do not have any type of record from the world of the Bible comparable to the Book of Mormon in which named narrators present their true history as a type of autobiographical narrative." The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, Wenamon Report, Tale of Sinuhe, and Dispute of a Man with His Ba are not actual autobiographical accounts. They're fictional stories. The autobiographical tomb inscriptions come closer to what Nephi is doing, but they don't seem a likely model for the Small Plates. Nephi isn't simply writing his epitaph. He's self-consciously authoring a book—part personal narrative, part exhortation—......................................................................

Actually many scholars consider the Wenamon Report and the Tale of Sinuhe to be factual accounts.  However, the very fact that the form and genre of first person accounts is so extensive in ancient Egypt exposes the primary problem with merely looking at the Bible in order to make final judgments about the ancient world.  Another thing:  Egyptian scribal students spent a great amount of time reading and copying Egyptian literature.  So, the finding of many motifs from Egyptian stories in the Book of Mormon is no surprise -- especially those from the Tale of Sinuhe.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[St. Bookmark]

What about the Olmec launguage in how close to the Book of Mormon script it is

[Robert F. Smith]

What about the Olmec launguage in how close to the Book of Mormon script it is

The problem with Olmec language is that it was (1) a dead language a couple of thousand years before the coming of Cortes.  We don't even know what the Olmec called themselves, and "Olmec" is merely a modern Spanish word used to designate the ancient people who once inhabited the Olmec cities; and (2) we don't have any idea what the Jaredite script looked like for comparison with Olmec glyphs; and (3) the Olmec and Jaredite writing system (which would be identical if they are one and the same people) is not used anywhere in the Book of Mormon Plates -- we have no transcript of it.  The  only hint of the  source of Olmec writing might be based on the etymology of Jaredite names.  We have several of those names which exhibit strong Sumero-Akkadian elements, i.e., Mesopotamia would be the source of Jaredite civilization.

[mikegriffith1]

Any thoughts why Lehi taught his children "the learning of the Jews" and the "language of the Egyptians?"

Was this something that was done at that time by others?

 

I'm guessing others have already pointed out that this was not an unknown practice back then. So once again a seemingly unusual Book of Mormon claim has been confirmed by ancient evidence.

 

http://davidgorton.com/Father/Articles/egyptian.html

 

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/index/book_of_mormon_articles/reformed-egyptian

Edited May 31, 2015 by mikegriffith1