Talk:1 Ne 2:1-5

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

On Szink's review[edit]

I'm not entirely comfortable with just appending Szink's review to the Barker article. I respect Szink's work generally, but I think that this one review is rather protracted and hastily argued. While pointing out a number of difficulties, he does not point out the strengths or alternate ways of understanding the issue. Are the extra links meant to supply a sort of contextualization for Barker's reception among Latter-day Saints, or are they there for some other purpose? It seems to me that they do not address very well the connection between the question raised in the passage here and Barker's article. That there are other groups under discussion seems to be the most important point. I wonder if we should drop the extra links or provide at least a little more explanation in the link concerning them. --Joe Spencer 15:27, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

I only skimmed the Barker article and wasn't entirely clear on the connection to the question raised. I was curious about other LDS views on the subject since my guess was that it was a controversial opinion (esp. the seeming aspersion cast on the book of Deutoronomy which Christ quotes during his 3 temptations, as well as other Deutoronomistic edits). I would suggest explaining/summarizing the argument a bit—the part that's relevant—and at least mention that this view is not undisputed (if not retain some links to other views; surely a better counter-view has been written than Szink's, no?). --RobertC 16:21, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of other reviews, to be honest. While I recognize that a full excision of Dtr. is not generally accepted, even among the more liberal LDS scholars, the question of the deuteronomic writers is hardly the thrust of the article. I don't think that Szink ultimately deals with Barker's article at all in his review. She is trying to think through the apparent shift in temple practices that occurred during Josiah's reforms (she has written some five or six books on the subject), and a major presupposition she brings to her studies is that the deuteronimists altered things greatly (not that the book of Dtr. is wholly a late fabrication). I think Latter-day Saint scholars are generally thrilled by Margaret Barker's scholarship, which, although coming with some presuppositions we tend not to have, goes a long ways towards grounding the Book of Mormon. See her response to Terryl Givens' paper at the "Worlds of Joseph Smith" conference last year, for example, where she specifically takes up the themes of the Book of Mormon from the point of view of her own scholarship. Szink, it seems to me, only responds to her work there by making sure that Latter-day Saints are well aware of every conclusion she has that might not float for Latter-day Saints, but her discoveries are not thereby discounted. Frank Moore Cross seems to me a great deal further from Latter-day Saint beliefs than Barker, and yet we even put him in our videos! Barker at least believes that most of the Bible is true, while Frank Moore Cross claims that none of it was written until at least the controversies of the divided kingdom. Perhaps all that needs to be said in the link is that, though Barker has some presuppositions foreign to Latter-day Saint studies of the Bible, her findings on groups that left Jerusalem about 600 BC are certainly interesting. --Joe Spencer 23:32, 12 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Exodus parallels[edit]

I edited the exodus stuff. In editing, one thing I took out was the following:

We will see as we continue through the Book of Mormon that Nephi uses Moses and the Exodus as a lesson and example to his brothers and his people. Nephi understands that the Exodus is a metaphor which gives spiritual significance to their wanderings.

Though I really liked this point and I think it is true, I had a hard time knowing where to work it in. But also, it seems to me to require some citations. Does anyone have any that come to mind in support of this? --Matthew Faulconer 05:39, 17 March 2007 (CET)

In the commentary I read this line:
"Lehi and Nephi probably understood Israelite history well enough to recognize the parallels between their exodus and the Israelite exodus from Egypt. For example it seems Nephi would have recognized that this promise to Nephi (in verse 19) echoes promises given to Moses:
Personally, I think we can go quite a bit beyond this. Not only do they seem to be aware of this, Nephi (as the author writing this text, generally speaking, decades after the events have occured) seems to be couching his narrative in this langauage intentionally. And there is a rhetorical strategy going on here. Take for example, verse 1 of chapter 2:
For behold, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto my father, yea, even in a dream, and said unto him: ...
This seems to be a clear citation of Numbers 12:6. There there is an issue between Moses and Miriam and Aaron. Miriam and Aaron are challenging Moses over his taking the Ethiopian woman as a wife. And the Lord hauls the three of them out of the camp and says this:
And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
So Lehi has just been "carried away in a vision" (1:8) and now is being spoken to by the LORD, "even in a dream". This language isn't just similar to the language of the Old Testament, it is reliant on it, and it is using it rhetorically to build an argument - first for Lehi as being a prophet like Moses and then later, Nephi. The objective isn't just to use Moses as an example, as it is to offer Lehi the same authority (and perhaps an even greater authority in a sense of being a living Moses). Thus, in 1:6, when Lehi sees the pillar of fire, the footnote probably gets it wrong (specifically and not generally) in trying to connect this pillar of fire with the pillar of fire that leads Israel out of Egypt. This isn't a pillar of fire, but a burning bush. This is Lehi's calling to be a prophet in terms which are visually similar to Moses. In saying this, I think I go farther than Brown or Szink, but I think it is the only real conclusion I can draw if also conclude that these parallels are deliberate and not just coincidental. I also think in simply labeling everything as being related to the Exodus here we make it harder to see the connections between Nephi's text and Numbers and Deuteronomy in particular. As far as citations, the one thing that would help hasn't been published yet (because I am lazy and haven't done a final edit), is a paper I have written (and even had peer reviewed), which I need to get on my web site so people can look at it. --Benjamin McGuire 18:03, 11 April 2007 (CEST)

Was it George Tate who wrote a study of the exodus motif in the Book of Mormon? Whoever wrote it, it is published in Literature of Belief, put out by the RSC.

First person / editing[edit]

So I just went through this page and spent a long time editing it. I rewrote a lot of stuff to remove the first-person stuff as per the sites policies. But also as I ended up deleting quite a bit as well. I had mixed feelings on removing stuff. But anyway, after doing all the work something went wrong and my editing was lost.

So, this gives me a nice chance to ask others for input. For example I deleted the section 'The Circumstances of Lehi's Departure from Jerusalem.' On the one hand, I found it interesting but I didn't think it really belong in an exegesis of verse 1. What do others think? Maybe there is an interesting comment on 1 Ne 7:14 that could be made comparing that verse to verse 2 here and other verses like that. I also had deleted the sections the Lord spake unto my father, in a dream, the Lord spake unto my father . . . and said unto him (I was moving this one to the question section), and thou has been faithful. And I heavily edited several other sections. What do others think of removing these sections? As I said, I have mixed feeling because I think there is some interesting thoughts in them but I'm not sure they belong in the exegesis.

Sterling, obviously, I'm particularly interested in your thoughts here. Also, good to see you back. It's been a while :) --Matthew Faulconer 03:07, 9 July 2007 (CEST)

I just came back to this page. I'm in the middle of trying to put something together for the blog. Because of the first person stuff I started editing and once again, ended up editing quite a bit more than just the first person stuff--including deleting stuff. Anyone, feel free to take a look at my edits and we can discuss if you think something should be added back in its original form or in a revised form. To give people a chance to respond I'm not going to continue editing, even if there are other first person sections in here. thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 06:17, 6 January 2008 (CET)

Matthew, at least some of the first person material came from me. Sorry about that. I must have forgot it was against the policy. I was working from some old notes and probably just copied verbatim. I will be sure to make the appropriate changes in the future. --Sterling 15:52, 6 January 2008 (CET)

No worries. Thanks as always for all your contributions to the wiki. --Matthew Faulconer 14:51, 9 January 2008 (CET)