Who does 2 Nephi 3:18-19 refer to?

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So here is the problem I have with what I hear you saying. I hear you saying Moses is the writer, and the writer is from the loins of Joseph of Egypt. However, Moses of Egypt was a Levite. So absent some intermarrying, Moses would not be a descendant of Joseph. The Bible certainly doesn't support that idea, and the ancient Hebrews wouldn't have since they counted descendancy through the patriarchal line. Moses was a Levite, and was not of Ephraim or Manasseh. 

I don't think Moses is the writer. I think he is the writer "type." And Aaron is the spokesman "type." Joseph of Egypt's prophecy covers generally two different time periods. One time period being foretold is Moses' time and this part of the prophecy ends at the end of verse 17. He uses the types established in this prophecy to set up his prophecy regarding a later time period and its associated writer and spokesman identified in verses 18 and 19. 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We would have to understand what the Lord meant by writer in that case, just as we can debate the semantics of "translate" as it pertains to the Book of Mormon. In any event Sidney was actually called to be a spokesman to the Church in D&C 100:9-11.

Glenn

Your point about the meaning of "write" is well-taken and I wouldn't exclude Joseph Smith as writer based solely on the semantics of that word. Still, I think it's worth considering if there is a better candidate. Your point about Sydney being called as a spokesman is also a good point. It does seem that D&C 100 makes a point of emphasizing the spokesman role to the point that it seems to be suggesting the very relationship you are suggesting. But following McConkie's lead "to identify those whose missions were of such import as to have them revealed thousands of years before the events transpired" I have a tough time associating Joseph of Egypt's prophecy with Sidney Rigdon. In short, I would say the Joseph Smith/Sydney Rigdon combination is plausible, but I would say it comes in at number 2 on my list of traditional explanations after Mormon/Joseph Smith.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Others claim that the sealed portion is only 1/3, which would affect your overall conclusion here.

Well, here's an additional reason the sealed portion and the Book of Ether may not even be as significant as I've made it out to be. According to verse 18 the writer is to "write the writing of the fruit of thy loins". The Jaredites were certainly not of the fruit of the loins of Joseph of Egypt. However, if the 24 plates of Ether were translated by a Nephite prophet, I think the Jaredite history could qualify in a literal sense as being "the writing of the fruit of thy loins" so maybe this problem is not that significant.

At the end of the analysis, I still take the Mormon/Joseph Smith combination to be the most likely traditional explanation. But I do think it is undermined by the fact that Mormon didn't write at least a portion of the Book of Mormon. In the end we're not sure the size of his non-contribution but I would say that the small plates plus Moroni on their own are significant enough to cause some doubt. 

In addition we have the fact that Joseph of Egypt's prophecy occurs on the small plates (obviously not written by Mormon). I am undecided right now about whether this is significant or not. And just to throw out another aspect that I'm trying to decide the significance (or lack) of, Lehi doesn't tell us how he knows this prophecy of Joseph's. He doesn't tell us it comes from the brass plates and that seems unlikely anyway.

[clarkgoble]

It's also not clear if the sealed portion is just the text the Brother of Jared wrote or a summation of it by Mormon or if it includes other documents by Mormon. It can be read in many ways.

When considering passages about Joseph Smith or his history we should also acknowledge our text may have expansions beyond what were on the original plates.

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Well, here's an additional reason the sealed portion and the Book of Ether may not even be as significant as I've made it out to be. According to verse 18 the writer is to "write the writing of the fruit of thy loins". The Jaredites were certainly not of the fruit of the loins of Joseph of Egypt. However, if the 24 plates of Ether were translated by a Nephite prophet, I think the Jaredite history could qualify in a literal sense as being "the writing of the fruit of thy loins" so maybe this problem is not that significant.

At the end of the analysis, I still take the Mormon/Joseph Smith combination to be the most likely traditional explanation. But I do think it is undermined by the fact that Mormon didn't write at least a portion of the Book of Mormon. In the end we're not sure the size of his non-contribution but I would say that the small plates plus Moroni on their own are significant enough to cause some doubt. 

But that is based on the false assumption that the Book of Mormon plates edited by Mormon were supposed to include the small plates, which is plainly false.  They are a part of the overall collection, but not intended by their human authors to be part of the final product.  So your size estimate is irrelevant.  That Mooni adds material to his father's collection seems to me of little significance in speaking of overall author/editorship.

51 minutes ago, JarMan said:

In addition we have the fact that Joseph of Egypt's prophecy occurs on the small plates (obviously not written by Mormon). I am undecided right now about whether this is significant or not. And just to throw out another aspect that I'm trying to decide the significance (or lack) of, Lehi doesn't tell us how he knows this prophecy of Joseph's. He doesn't tell us it comes from the brass plates and that seems unlikely anyway.

That prophecy may as likely also been included in the book of Lehi, which was the product of Mormon.  Indeed, some scholars even suggest that the Brass Plates were begun by Joseph of Egypt, and that this is why they are in Egyptian and kept by Josephites/Manassites.  Why, in your opinion, are they in Egyptian?  Why not in Hebrew?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It's also not clear if the sealed portion is just the text the Brother of Jared wrote or a summation of it by Mormon or if it includes other documents by Mormon. It can be read in many ways.

Right.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

When considering passages about Joseph Smith or his history we should also acknowledge our text may have expansions beyond what were on the original plates.

I'm risking getting off topic with this comment, but I have a hard time understanding how expansion via Joseph Smith is compatible with the idea that Joseph read the words off the seer stone. I acknowledge expansion. In fact I think it's an absolute must. But I don't see how expansion can really occur on the scale I think it occurred between the time the words were shown on the seer stone and written down by the scribe.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is based on the false assumption that the Book of Mormon plates edited by Mormon were supposed to include the small plates, which is plainly false.  They are a part of the overall collection, but not intended by their human authors to be part of the final product.  So your size estimate is irrelevant.  That Mooni adds material to his father's collection seems to me of little significance in speaking of overall author/editorship.

Mormon didn't make the prophecy. Joseph in Egypt did. There's no reason he couldn't have known the final form the Book of Mormon would take.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That prophecy may as likely also been included in the book of Lehi, which was the product of Mormon.  Indeed, some scholars even suggest that the Brass Plates were begun by Joseph of Egypt, and that this is why they are in Egyptian and kept by Josephites/Manassites.  Why, in your opinion, are they in Egyptian?  Why not in Hebrew?

Presumably Moses began the record in Egyptian and this language was kept by the scholars until Lehi's time.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Mormon didn't make the prophecy. Joseph in Egypt did. There's no reason he couldn't have known the final form the Book of Mormon would take.

'Well, it is true that the small plates had an unforeseen purpose (though foreseen by God), but I see no reason that the prophecy could not be in the book of Lehi.  Perhaps you have a compelling reason.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Presumably Moses began the record in Egyptian and this language was kept by the scholars until Lehi's time.

Yeh, that is a possibility.  The problem is that Joseph was Prime Minister of Egypt and was more likely to have had the resources early in his career.  In Moses' case, even though he was raised in the royal household, he was not a prophet until after being kicked out of Egypt and ending up in Midian.  The opportunity to have begun the records had already passed, and Moses then had bigger fish to fry.

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I consider each person in that chain of events equally important, and believe that God does as well.  Moses is not more important than Joseph Smith Jr, and Joseph-who-was-sold-into-Egypt was not more important then Brigham Young, Israel not less important than Abraham, etc.  The guy you term a "middle man" rendered the text into English, while Joseph Smith merely read it off to his scribes.  Devaluing someone in that way seems to cheapen the value of revelation.

I was not devaluing anyone Robert, just questioning whether such a middle man actually existed other than God or the Holy Ghost. The latter is, to my way of thinking, the more likely part of the Godhead that produced that translation.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

However, if the 24 plates of Ether were translated by a Nephite prophet, I think the Jaredite history could qualify in a literal sense as being "the writing of the fruit of thy loins" so maybe this problem is not that significant.

The plates of Ether were translated by King Mosiah and had them recorded. Mosiah 28:11.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm risking getting off topic with this comment, but I have a hard time understanding how expansion via Joseph Smith is compatible with the idea that Joseph read the words off the seer stone. I acknowledge expansion. In fact I think it's an absolute must. But I don't see how expansion can really occur on the scale I think it occurred between the time the words were shown on the seer stone and written down by the scribe.

The person putting the words on the seer stone was doing the expansion.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I was not devaluing anyone Robert, just questioning whether such a middle man actually existed other than God or the Holy Ghost. The latter is, to my way of thinking, the more likely part of the Godhead that produced that translation.

Glenn

In the economy of God, He consistently uses human agents whenever possible.  Fallible as they are.  No shortcuts.

[JarMan]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

'Well, it is true that the small plates had an unforeseen purpose (though foreseen by God), but I see no reason that the prophecy could not be in the book of Lehi.  Perhaps you have a compelling reason.

Yeh, that is a possibility.  The problem is that Joseph was Prime Minister of Egypt and was more likely to have had the resources early in his career.  In Moses' case, even though he was raised in the royal household, he was not a prophet until after being kicked out of Egypt and ending up in Midian.  The opportunity to have begun the records had already passed, and Moses then had bigger fish to fry.

Having a busy schedule is a potential problem for just about every Nephite leader trying to keep a history. Besides, Lehi and Nephi seems to think that Moses began the record (1 Nephi 5:11). I just don't see any indication that Joseph's prophecy was on the brass plates. The prophecy from Joseph of Egypt seems rather like a literary device: the vaticinatio post eventum, or prophecy after the fact. It's being used, in my view, as an expansion of the text which serves to add divine credibility to the person writing the record, he himself being the subject of the prophecy. So under this view we need to determine who the writer is making this expansion. One person it can't be is Mormon since he didn't write the small plates. It could be Joseph Smith. But I tend to think he is late to the party on this. 2 Nephi 3:15 could obviously be an expansion from Joseph Smith, but that makes the unspecific nature of verses 18-19 less likely to be Joseph's expansion--particularly in light of D&C 100:9-11, which to me, indicates Joseph's ex post facto attempt to tie himself back to this particular prophecy.

This leaves me with only one possible candidate as the writer, and that is our 17th Century prophet. When I have some time later I'll present the case for him in light of our discussion on this topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Having a busy schedule is a potential problem for just about every Nephite leader trying to keep a history. Besides, Lehi and Nephi seems to think that Moses began the record (1 Nephi 5:11). I just don't see any indication that Joseph's prophecy was on the brass plates. The prophecy from Joseph of Egypt seems rather like a literary device: the vaticinatio post eventum, or prophecy after the fact. It's being used, in my view, as an expansion of the text...................................

Prophecy ex eventu is one way of looking at it.  Another would be to see 1 Ne 5:11, 19:23 (cf. Nehemiah 8:1, 13:1) as conventional references in Lehi's day to the Hebrew Canon then extant.  Hirsch Miller translates as Hebrew ḥămišâ ḥûmšēy tôrâ at 1 Nephi 5:11 “five books of Moses.”  Lehi need only have been putting those Brass Plates contents in conventional terms so that those reading his account might understand what he is saying.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prophecy ex eventu is one way of looking at it.  Another would be to see 1 Ne 5:11, 19:23 (cf. Nehemiah 8:1, 13:1) as conventional references in Lehi's day to the Hebrew Canon then extant.  Hirsch Miller translates as Hebrew ḥămišâ ḥûmšēy tôrâ at 1 Nephi 5:11 “five books of Moses.”  Lehi need only have been putting those Brass Plates contents in conventional terms so that those reading his account might understand what he is saying.

1 Nephi 5:11-13, 15 sounds like a description of the modern Old Testament through about Jeremiah. (The history of the world up to Moses seems to be reserved to him to write.) We get some immediate hints in verses 14 and 16 that it contains some extra genealogical information going back to Joseph of Egypt, but nothing new besides the genealogy is mentioned. One thing I'll point out now, and then tie into shortly, is the emphasis in the Book of Mormon on the lineage of Joseph.

At this point I'm going to bring in our 17th Century prophet. I've proposed Grotius or a close associate to fill this role. It turns out Grotius was a great admirer of Joseph of Egypt. (But who isn't though, right?) In 1635 Grotius wrote a play entitled Sophompaneas which dramatizes Joseph's confrontation with his brothers in the role of governor of Egypt. Grotius saw this part of Joseph's life as an allegory of his own life. At the time he was exiled from his own country but was employed by the Queen of Sweden as ambassador to France. So, like Joseph, he was in a foreign land serving a foreign government but doing his best to bring peace and prosperity to those he served. Grotius portrays Joseph in this play as essentially the ideal ruler.

I haven't been able to find an English version of this play, but I've found quite a bit of commentary on it. Chapter 13 of this book has a good summary of the play and some excellent analysis. It's from this book that I get the following quote:

Quote

This instance of tragic irony is immediately followed by a speech in which Joseph predicts a number of events recorded in the Hebrew Bible that will likewise affect the Egyptians. As a true diplomat, however, he omits the disasters related in Exodus, although he does add that Egypt's future prosperity will last only as long as it continues to cherish God's chosen people. Grotius has Joseph conclude his prophecy by predicting the advent of Christ and the New Covenant, which will one day unite the Hebrews and Egyptians as well as their respective religions.

So not only does Grotius' Joseph make an after the fact prophecy, but the prophecy contains obvious similarities to the one made by Joseph in 2 Nephi 3. For one, they both predict events that occur in the Bible. Without the actual play I don't know how similar the events predicted are. But still, this is an interesting correspondence. But the more striking correspondence is that Grotius' Joseph predicts the Hebrew and Egyptian religions will one day unite under the New Covenant. This is quite similar to what is prophesied in verse 12:  "Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord."

This brings us full circle to verses 18 and 19 which I addressed in the OP. It appears that Grotius has written himself into Joseph's prophecy as the one who will "write the writing of the fruit of thy loins". At the same time he proclaims himself as being a descendant of Joseph, the prophet-governor he admires. The spokesman could be Joseph Smith or it could be someone else, but this identification is really beside the point.

The next obvious step for me is to get an English version of the play so I can make a direct comparison. I will also check into how Grotius might have understood he was a descendant of Joseph.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The person putting the words on the seer stone was doing the expansion.

I noticed you said the "person" rather than God. Are you saying there was another person (rather than God) on the other end of the seer stone, so to speak?

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I noticed you said the "person" rather than God. Are you saying there was another person (rather than God) on the other end of the seer stone, so to speak?

Maybe Clark is thinking of someone texting.  The problem is that the person who did the English translation had already done it centuries earlier.  Any transmission via solid state electronics is of that earlier completed document, phrase by phrase.  Anyone insisting on an expansionary midrashic text has to realize that it is that earlier person who made that expanded test.  Joseph is merely reading it off the stone to his scribes, without any editorializing.  Moroni is presumably superintending the complete operation through human agents.

[The Nehor]

They are Metatron, Raphael, and “the one mighty and strong” respectively.

[JarMan]

There's one fun "coincidence" I forgot to mention. Grotius was very concerned with the idea of good governance. He worked in government for much of his career and wrote extensively on the subject. In his play Joseph was his ideal ruler. I've argued previously that in the Book of Mormon King Benjamin represents Grotius' ideal ruler. What a coincidence, then, that his ideal king in the Book of Mormon has the same name as the beloved younger brother of his ideal biblical ruler.

[clarkgoble]

On 1/8/2018 at 9:40 PM, JarMan said:

I noticed you said the "person" rather than God. Are you saying there was another person (rather than God) on the other end of the seer stone, so to speak?

No particular claim. It could be some AI routine drawing out of Joseph’s memory in a mechanical fashion for all I know.

[JarMan]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No particular claim. It could be some AI routine drawing out of Joseph’s memory in a mechanical fashion for all I know.

So the “person” doing the translation, whether God or AI or something else, is able to essentially access Joseph’s thoughts and interweave them into the translated text that appears on the stone?

How do you see the KJB getting in there? Does it come from Joseph’s mind or does the “person” doing the translation have autonomous control over this?

Edited January 10, 2018 by JarMan

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

So the “person” doing the translation, whether God or AI or something else, is able to essentially access Joseph’s thoughts and interweave them into the translated text that appears on the stone?

How do you see the KJB getting in there? Does it come from Joseph’s mind or does the “person” doing the translation have autonomous control over this?

I have zero idea how the process worked. It seemed to partially depend upon Joseph's environment and led to a loose translation. How much of that was due to the manner of the writing system on the plates, how much due to the process, and how much due to Joseph I couldn't begin to say. But given what little we know of the process it seemed to require a great deal of concentration and study. I'd surmise that involves accessing short term memory and perhaps other types of habitual memory of Joseph in some sense. But that's purely speculative. 

I think we can talk about what's in the product. It includes a lot of KJV quotations, even when it's abundantly clear the underlying text doesn't match the KJV in any strong sense. It includes not just quotations but also loose paraphrases not only of the KJV but also Shakespeare and likely religious rhetoric Joseph was exposed to. In terms of short 2-4 word phrases it appears many common 19th century religious phrases were accessed. However there's also clearly variations even when it's mostly quoting the KJV. While some have speculated that the variants are significant by looking at Isaiah variants, I'm far more skeptical of that. Also as others have noted there's odd but stable grammatical structures as well.

To me, even when I try to be my most cynical and critical I just can't see Joseph Smith being the author. Even if he was delusional rather than fraudulent the ghost writing seems very unlikely to be able to produce the more complicated structures we see. So something else is going on. However at the same time I also have a pretty hard time seeing it being an other author for various reasons not the least of which explaining how Joseph got the text.

Edited January 10, 2018 by clarkgoble