1st Nephi-- a product of its time, or an Innovation?

[All-American]

In an earlier thread, Solon stated:

Originally Posted by Solon

If the BoM, especially the book of 1 Nephi, is what it says it is, it is the most innovative historical work ever written. Ever.

It begs the question: to what extent can the Book of Mormon be said to be a product of its time, being rooted in the historiographical tradition of its day, verses being a work of innovation?

I said I would try to do some research on the matter, and I fully intend to; nevertheless, being aware of myself, in all likelihood, by this time tomorrow I will be so bogged down in Greek and Latin texts that I will have lost all time and interest in the topic. In the spirit of getting something done half right rather than not at all, I submit some of these thoughts. My research is poor, if at all existent, and it won't prove the Book of Mormon true or false either way. In fact, I will be operating under the assumption that it is true, and I invite those who wish to call that assumption under question to do so in another thread.

Innovation, it seems to me, occurs under either of two circumstances: either as the progression and evolution from current modes of thought and practices, or as the offspring of the synthesis of different ideas and methodology. Mormons will always have that ultimate trump card of "revelation"-- if it seems that Nephi is doing something unique and we can't figure out why he's doing it, we say that God told him to do it and we leave it at that (cf. 1 Nephi 19:1-6). Nevertheless, Nephi is also unique benefactor of either of these two catalysts of innovation, especially the second.

Nephi lived in an era which Karl Jaspers referred to as the "Axial Age." Various dates are given by others for this time period; among the earliest dates given, the axial age lasted from 1000 to 600 BC; another lists it as lasting from 600 to 300 BC; yet another, 900 to 200 BC. Jaspers himself gives the date 500 BC as the "axis of history," noting that that date was the culmination of a process taking place from 800 to 200 BC. (Karl Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953)). The time is one of a sudden surge in culture, interaction, and intellectual development.

Innovation comes in part as a result of interaction of different cultures and ideologies, and Lehi's family was in prime position to benefit from them. Three cultures in particular greatly influenced Nephi's family: the desert-dwelling Arabs, whose desert traveling he learned and lived by; the Egyptians, whose language and writing he taught to his son(s) (does anybody but Nephi seem to have learned Egyptian from Lehi?); and the Hebrews, among whom he lived, and from whom he inherited his religion. Nibley, in Lehi in the Desert points out that the names of his sons testify to this inheritance:

One might, in a speculative mood, even detect something of Lehi's personal history in the names he gave to his sons. The first two have Arabic names—do they recall his early days in the caravan trade? The second two have Egyptian names, and indeed they were born in the days of his prosperity. The last two, born amid tribulations in the desert, were called, with fitting humility, Jacob and Joseph. Whether the names of the first four were meant, as those of the last two sons certainly were (2 Nephi 2:1; 3:1), to call to mind the circumstances under which they were born, the names are certainly a striking indication of their triple heritage.

These three cultures likely had an impact on Nephi's writing style, as well. He wrote in the language of the Egyptians, true; he also apparently mimics Egyptian style at times, as he does in opening with a typical colophon, as was previously discussed. The first person, as Solon earlier pointed out, was being used by Assyrian Kings around this time (though it would be a stretch to definitively link Arab to Assyrian culture-- it will suffice to merely point out that it is happening). The frankness and openness of Nephi's writing is, perhaps, a product of Hebrew culture. Nearly every other form of ancient writing that mentioned the deeds of the king did so with an extreme bias-- the Pharaoh would be credited with a major victory whether it was major or a victory, for example, and when the Assyrians besieged Jerusalem during Isaiah's day but failed to take the city, they went back and credited the King with a great accomplishment for having confined them to imprisonment within their walls. The bible, on the other hand, discusses the misdeeds and vices of its heroes with uncharacteristic frankness. Moses was slow of speech, and prone to error; David was an adulterer who fathered an illegitimate child and arranged the unlawful death of the boy's mother; Judah slept with a harlot who was a member of his own household. All of these cultures have influences on Nephi's writings.

Nephi's family is remarkably cosmopolitan. Mingling with outside cultures would characteristically keep such a family outside of culture; being a desert trader, in particular, would force one to be comfortable away from the luxuries of city life, and the ease in which Lehi leaves Jerusalem particularly hints at a distance from civilization itself. It is therefore odd that Nephi, in whom the intermingling of the cultures is made most manifest, is appointed the heir of the dominion of Lehi's family. It is quite possible that Nephi was intended to be member of sorts of a scribal/priestly caste, to whom in ancient cultures the responsibilities of writing were delegated, while his older brothers were to be the royal lineage. When they were disqualified for their wickedness (cf. 1 Nephi 3:29), that role apparently fell to Nephi. (One wonders where Sam is in all of this. His absence is one of the most perplexing questions of 1st Nephi.)

This hypothesis is further supported by the events that take place once they arrive in the new world. The practice of having the king assume the responsibilities of the historian and scribe lasted for one generation-- Nephi's-- and subsequently, the role of the priest/scribe fell to his brother Jacob and his sons, while the scepter of government stayed in Nephi's lineage. Furthermore, the precedent set by Nephi withered over time. Jacob, his brother, confined himself to recording one of his sermons, copying an allegory, and relegating one story of an interaction with an apostate. Enos, his son, told of his conversion experience. Jarom's account is even shorter; Omni and his descendants turn the small plates into a signature book, kept for the sake of custom alone. That Nephi was especially innovative is evidenced by the fact that his innovations died out within a few generations.

One wonders if the large plates eventually became "histories" similar to those less-than-forthwith accounts wherein the Pharaoh won all of his battles, especially the ones he lost. Maybe that's why Mormon included the small plates.

Speculation, all, and raising more questions than answers. Until I can get into the library, and I somehow doubt that I'll have the energy or time necessary to properly address the prompt, this is the best I can do to supply this forum with food for thought.

[Archaea]

This shows my ignorance.

I would have thought Arabs derived from Egyptians, even though following this period Egyptians would have been heavily influenced by Greeks.

Arabs? To what groups are they linked? Phonecians? Not Persians, Assyrians or Babylonians?

Interesting take though.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This shows my ignorance.

I would have thought Arabs derived from Egyptians, even though following this period Egyptians would have been heavily influenced by Greeks.

Arabs? To what groups are they linked? Phonecians? Not Persians, Assyrians or Babylonians?

Interesting take though.

Historically, Arabs are supposedly the descendants of Ishmael, Isaac's half brother, whose mother was Sarah's handmaiden. They will be more closely linked to the Hebrews as such-- the names of both groups could both derive from different pronunciations of the same root word. They were also desert dwellers, in the mold of their traditional ancestor, Ishmael, and thus more inclined to caravaneering and desert trade, thus contributing to the linking of societies that so defined Lehi's family.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Historically, Arabs are supposedly the descendants of Ishmael, Isaac's half brother, whose mother was Sarah's handmaiden. They will be more closely linked to the Hebrews as such-- the names of both groups could both derive from different pronunciations of the same root word. They were also desert dwellers, in the mold of their traditional ancestor, Ishmael, and thus more inclined to caravaneering and desert trade, thus contributing to the linking of societies that so defined Lehi's family.

This post illustrates how confused you are. No reputable academic would refer to a Bible story as "history" in any shape or form. As Barbara aptly put it the other day (I'm paraphrasing her), the Bible is useful as the only available record of the rise and fall, migrations, etc. of tribes and peoples in the macro. But any notion of the specific tale of Ishmael, Isaac's half brother, and Isaac's mother, i.e., Sarah's handmaiden, being history is nonsense. No one educated should refer to it as history as such. What are they teaching you at BYU? History as a strict discipline and as we know it arose in the Greek isles.

The idea that the Arabs are descendants of "Ishmael" is about as credible as that they are descendants of Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry to be brusque but this is an important point.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This post illustrates how confused you are. No reputable academic would refer to a Bible story as "history" in any shape or form. As Barbara aptly put it the other day (I'm paraphrasing her), the Bible is useful as the only available record of the rise and fall, migrations, etc. of tribes and peoples in the macro. But any notion of the specific tale of Ishmael, Isaac's half brother, and Isaac's mother, i.e., Sarah's handmaiden, being history is nonsense. No one educated should refer to it as history as such. What are they teaching you at BYU? History as a strict discipline and as we know it arose in the Greek isles.

The idea that the Arabs are descendants of "Ishmael" is about as credible as that they are descendants of Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry to be brusque but this is an important point.

And we all thank you for making the distinction, I'm sure.

The fact of the matter is that the Arabs believe they are descended from Ishmael, and that fundamental belief has affected their history every bit as much as the Jewish belief that they are descended from Isaac. But I'm sure you didn't deliberately overlook such important key words, among them "supposedly," or "traditionally," which showed that I was NOT accepting it as verbatim historical fact, but rather an important belief that has everything to do with their history.

But thanks again for your help. Or attempt thereat, anyway. And for all your talk of how confused I apparently am, there's an awful lot of responses of mine to which you have made no comment. Aren't you the one who was telling me that Darwin was a thinker from the enlightenment era? Mustard seed, indeed.

One more bit. Your hellenophilic approach to education is embarrassingly out of whack. The more scholars are learning about Greek culture and society, the more they realize how much ancient Greece depended upon the Ancient Near East for it's most enduring trademarks. You act as though every intelligent thought somehow began in the Aegean.

Sorry to be brusque.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As Barbara aptly put it the other day (I'm paraphrasing her), the Bible is useful as the only available record of the rise and fall, migrations, etc. of tribes and peoples in the macro.

Wow, Seattle, that's quite a paraphrase. This is what Barbara posted.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Wow, Seattle, that's quite a paraphrase. This is what Barbara posted.

I will adopt this:

"Sacred texts best serve as history when examined as primary source material for the time period in which they were composed. Their usefulness is limited as an actual historical record of the persons or events discussed within the work."

I agree.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

And we all thank you for making the distinction, I'm sure.

The fact of the matter is that the Arabs believe they are descended from Ishmael, and that fundamental belief has affected their history every bit as much as the Jewish belief that they are descended from Isaac.

They believe it because it says so in the Koran, which is not a history book either. Real historians don't talk about Bible stories as being history. They just don't.

[MikeWaters]

SU, STFU.

That's all.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They believe it because it says so in the Koran, which is not a history book either. Real historians don't talk about Bible stories as being history. They just don't.

Good-- because neither did I. Which point you also refuse to acknowledge.

Seriously, you've got nothing on this one. Move along before you embarrass yourself more.

Now, I spent a nice little chunk of time on this thread, and I'd appreciate it if anybody had anything to say about it, instead of watching the thing devolve into another of Seattle's rants.