John L. Sorenson
Dialogue 10 (Autumn 1977): 31-39. Reprinted in NCAS, 25-39.
One of the notable intellectual activities of the 19th and early 20th
centuries was development of the view that the Old Testament was a composite of
ancient documents of varied age and source. Although the origin of the view in
western European thought goes back over two hundred years, it was not until the
early decades of this century, with the triumph of an evolutionary view of
history, that the logical extreme of the position was attained. Julius
Wellhausen's phrasing of the "classical documentary hypothesis" then became
orthodox for virtually all well-educated divines and secular scholars on
antiquity.1
Four major strands of tradition--or early sources--were
thought distinguishable, particularly in the Pentateuch. These were variously
considered actual original documents, or the distinct revisions of later
editors, or the manifestations of separate bodies of tradition, first oral and
then written. The earliest, or "J" strand was seen as fundamental, from which an
"E” tradition diverged. Each had telltale stylistic differences and theological
biases, especially in the preference for a different name for divinity— “J”
deriving its designation from its common use of Jehovah (Yahweh), and "E” from
Elohim. A third source, "P" (for Priestly), was held to present a tradition-
conscious picture of a God distant from the lives and immediate concerns of men.
The fourth source, "D", was identified as that emphasizing the Deuteronomic
law.2 The Old Testament was seen as an intricate composite of all these separate
sources or traditions.
In its extreme form, the logic of documentary
analysis on the basis of lexicon, style and content eventually led to
distinguishing many more than four sources, all supposedly based on
peculiarities detected in the text by one or more analysts. At this extreme the
subjectivity manifested by these analysts tended to discredit the entire
enterprise.
At the other end of the scale, some critics considered fine-
grained stylistic distinctions unreliable and logically untenable, while
conceding at the same time that the evidence indeed seemed to demonstrate that
the Old Testament account did not derive from a single original source.
Fundamentalist Christians looked on Wellhausen and his scholarly peers as "a
cunning enemy,"3 along with Darwin, for the multi-traditionary view seemed to
them to challenge the historicity of the Old Testament as much as they thought
"evolution" did.
Scholarly skepticism about the classical documentary
view of the scriptures arose when the findings of modern biblical archaeology in
the 1930's began to show that Hebrew religion had a complex history rather than
being a simple development from tribal lore. The discovery and translation of
ancient texts further demonstrated the untenability of many methods and
conclusions of Wellhausen's era. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed, for example, that
the ancient sources of the Old Testament were far more complex than was allowed
in the evolutionism of the older critics.4 In the words of H.D. Hummel:
.
. . In all likelihood, the original tradition was richer than any of its three
major later derivatives (the Septuagint, Samaritan and Masoretic texts).... it
now seems likely that [our present] text has suffered more from losses than from
glosses.5
Today no one interpretation prevails among the scholars, yet a
general tendency is clearly discernible. As John Bright has observed, "Even
those who announce their abandonment of the methods of literary criticism for
those of oral tradition still feel obliged to work with blocks of material
corresponding roughly to what is designated by the symbols J, E, D, and P."6
William F. Albright was, characteristically, more blunt: "There can be no doubt
that nineteenth-century scholarship was correct in recognizing different blocks
of material in the Pentateuch."7 Umberto Cassuto, from an Israeli position,
claimed that the divergences in the text which critics have attributed to
multiple documents "do not prove the existence of documents such as J, E and P,
and they contain nothing that could not be found in a homogeneous book," yet
even he spoke of J, E and P as differing "sources" and supposed them to
"indicate the different types of tradition that have been absorbed into the
various sections."8 Clyde Francisco, with a rather conservative American stance,
quotes approvingly C. R. North's statement that, "It seems quite clear that if
we bury the 'documents,' we shall have to resurrect them--or something very much
like them."9
The general position of Latter-day Saints on the Old
Testament has been defensive and apologetic, somewhat along the lines seen in
the more traditional Christian denominations. The task for the rare LDS biblical
scholar has been to defend unexamined Christian tradition about the text (e.g.,
that a single Isaiah produced the book that bears his name). Yet concern has
been less with the Bible as such than with its relationship to the Book of
Mormon, where extensive quotations are made from the Old
Testament.10
Although the "brass plates" referred to in the Book of
Mormon are said to have much in common with the Old Testament, they have
received little attention from Mormon scholars.11 Nonetheless, the hint has long
been there that these plates contain a variant Old Testament text comparable to
what scholars have considered one of the basic "documents" or "texts" from which
the Old Testament was compiled. The thesis of this article is that the brass
plates are related to the "E" source. Mormon scripture may thus support rather
than challenge the notion that more than a single source underlies the Old
Testament.
The Brass Plates
Near the beginning of the Book of Mormon
we read of Nephi and his brothers being sent back to Jerusalem to obtain a
record particularly desired by their father Lehi.12 This record was in the
possession of one Laban, whose ancestry Lehi shared and who possessed
significant power and influence in Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian
captivity.13 The content of the plates had two aspects: (1) "The record of the
Jews," including "the law of Moses," and (2) "also a genealogy of (Lehi's)
forefathers."14 Upon the sons' obtaining the plates, a fuller description was
entered in the Lehite record:
Lehi took the records which were engraver
upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he
beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which give an account of
the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;
and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement
of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; and also the prophecies of the holy
prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of
Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of
Jeremiah. And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates
of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant
of Joseph.... And thus my father, Lehi, did discover the genealogy of his
fathers.15
Amulek in the Book of Mormon (Alma 10:3) reports that Lehi
descended from Manasseh. Joseph Smith also stated that according to the first
portion of the Book of Mormon record--the transcript of which was lost by Martin
Harris--Ishmael (who accompanied Lehi) was a descendant of Ephraim.16
The
description of the contents of the brass plates indicates that they contained a
record essentially similar to the Old Testament as we are familiar with it, but
with an expanded text (1 Nephi 3:3), including a genealogy going back through
the tribe of Joseph rather than Judah. This points to an origin in the Northern
Kingdom, rather than in the Judaic South. This impression is further supported
by a number of citations from the brass plate record scattered through the Book
of Mormon.
Book of Mormon writers mention five prophets whose words
appear in the brass plates: Zenos, Zenock, Ezias, Isaiah, and Neum (the last
might be Nahum). Of the first four only Isaiah is surely known from existing
biblical texts. Internal evidence suggests a reason why: All four direct a great
deal of attention to the Northem Kingdom. Since the Masoretic text, which lies
behind our King James version, came out of the South, omission of three of the
four (or four of the five, counting Neum) is explicable. Zenos is quoted as
saying, "And as for those who are at Jerusalem...."17 Nowhere else in the
extensive quotes from Zenos does he mention Judah or Jerusalem. This in context
strongly suggests that he was not located in the territory of Judah. (It is
implied in 3 Nephi 11:16 that Zenos and Zenock were of a Joseph tribe, although
nothing is said of location.) The reference to Jerusalem implies a date after
David's capture of the city and quite probably after the division of the
monarchy (about 922 B.C.). Careful reading of the allegory of the olive tree,
from Zenos,18 as well as Alma 33:3-17 concerning both Zenos and Zenock, further
confirms a context of a sinful Israel more reminiscent of the time of Amos
(mid-8th century B.C.) than earlier or later. Moreover, Zenock was said to be a
"prophet of old,"19 a chronological term not used regarding Jeremiah or even
Isaiah. The probability is high, therefore, that the prophets cited from the
brass plates date between 900 B.C. and the end of the Northern Kingdom in 721
B.C.
Lehi's connection with the Joseph of Egypt is emphasized in the
blessing he pronounced on his own son, Joseph.20 When Lehi there asserts, "For
behold ... I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt,"
there can be no question that his information was derived from the brass plates,
for it was his first inspection of them which revealed to him that he was a
descendant of Joseph.21 He then continues on to communicate additional
information about Joseph, finally quoting at some length a prophecy credited to
that patriarch.22 This added information and the genealogical tie again point
our attention to the Northern Kingdom, the territory of Ephraim and
Manasseh.
The emphasis on Egyptian tradition and language manifest in the
Book of Mormon is also coordinate with the Joseph element in the brass plates.
Nephi's statement that his record consisted of "the learning of the Jews and the
language of the Egyptians"23 could equally be said of the inscription on the
back of one of the carved ivories from Samaria, where Egyptian glyphs were used
in a cartouche apparently to spell out the sounds in a Hebrew name (A-L-Y-W-Sh-b
or Eliashib).24 Hugh Nibley's Lehi in the Desert25 documents extensive Egyptian
cultural ties among the Nephites which seem to support a far more fundamental
connection than mere trade exposure in the time of Lehi. Lehi's purpose in
obtaining the record was "that we may preserve unto our children the language of
our fathers," not merely the language of Lehi's trade transactions.26 It is also
to be noted that Lehi, according to Nibley's analysis, was trade-,
international-, and desert- oriented. Such characteristics, we shall see below,
are congruent with the Northern-centered E tradition.
Other significant
data on Northern Kingdom Ephraimitic inclusions and orientations in the Book of
Mormon deriving from the brass plates will be pointed out later. It is already
evident, however, that the record obtained from Laban's treasury included a
version of the Old Testament with special Northern Kingdom
characteristics.
The E Source and the Northern Kingdom
E source was
fundamentally a Northern Kingdom expression. According to Albright, E gives
strong indications of being an official rewriting of J intended for the Northern
Kingdom and produced in the century following division of the Kingdom (about 922
B.C.). J itself could not date later than the division, and its formation under
the United Monarchy (about 1000 B.C.) is highly probable. The preferences in
deity names between J and E sources have been demonstrated to be consistent and
significant, not mere literary quirks.27 They reflect different traditions
transmitted through regionally distinct "schools" of scribes which existed from
the tenth century onward.28 After the Assyrian destruction of the Northern
Kingdom in 721 B.C. "faithful worshippers of Yahweh fled to Judah and there
cultivated a number of their own traditions."29 There in the first half of the
seventh century J and E "were woven together . . . into a single narrative
(JE)." J was the main source used, with E materials occasionally used in
parallel or, more often, in replacement.30
Albright noted that
differences between J and E already existed in the Pentateuchal poems dating
between Exodus and the Monarchy, thus the later "schools" had a prior basis.31
Such distinction could have had both a regional and a cultural basis, for the El
names which characterize the E materials tended to be more popular on the edge
of the desert, as a heritage from nomadic times.32 Cassuto's observation also
may be related. He noted that in Old Testament situations where God is
represented as a universal or international deity, rather than as God of Israel,
an El name occurs. For example in all the sections of Genesis pertaining to
Egypt, including the entire story of Joseph, El names are used exclusively.33
The universalizing influence, the desert influence and the Joseph influence in
northern Israel all reinforced the separateness of deity names- and motifs of
the sacred tradition found in E, as against the more nationalistic J source
preferred by the Jews at Jerusalem.
Other Indications of E in the Book of
Mormon
Details not mentioned above further evidence possible E effects on
the Book of Mormon, either through the brass plates or through the family
tradition in which Lehi was reared.
1. The Book of Mormon virtually
ignores the Davidic covenant, a "J” element. David is mentioned but six times
(two incidentally in quotations from Isaiah). Two instances involved strong
condemnation of David.34
2. Instead, considerable attention is paid to the
Abrahamic convenant and to the patriarchs. All twenty- nine references to
Abraham are laudatory. Jacob is also so named, a positive E characteristic,
whereas J uses "Israel” as his personal name.35
3. The Jews, particularly the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, are branded as evil in the strongest terms.36
4.
Emphasis is placed on Joseph being sold into Egypt, his saving Jacob's house,
and the Lord's special covenant with Joseph which is not attested in the Old
Testament.37 The coat of Joseph is a topic specific to E on which the Book of
Mormon adds data not found in the Jewish version (J).38
5. The name Jehovah,
the preferred J title of deity, occurs only twice in the Book of Mormon (once in
a quote from Isaiah 12--with one word changed--and once in the very last
sentence in the volume). The name Lord is usually used for divinity in the Book
of Mormon (almost 1400 times).39
6. Unmistakable El (E source) names do occur
in the Book of Mormon, notably Most High God (Hebrew "El Elyon") and Almighty
God (the Septuagint's term for "El Shaddai"),40 the former six times and the
latter eleven.
In addition to these points, which are sufficiently
specific that they strike me as probably based on the brass plates text, other
characteristics of E of more generic nature are found in the Book of Mormon. We
might suppose them to result from the early Book of Mormon writers' carrying on
a record-keeping tradition or scribal "school" which had a strong E ingredient
in it. The Book of Mormon, at least in its first portion (the small plates),
could plausibly be considered a manifestation of that scribal tradition, on the
basis of the evidence offered above.
E's focus on events, in contrast to
J's remarkable characterizations of persons, fits the Book of Mormon, which is
annalistic and for the most part limited in its treatment of characters. At
least the text of the small plates, like E, is abstract, tending to be removed
from mundane life. E's tendency to turn attention back to ancient times likewise
fits. The Elohistic (E) tendency to refer to dreams and angelic messengers
rather than to direct appearances by God (a J feature) is similarly apt for the
Nephite volume. Other E features include greater concern with moral issues, and
a relatively spiritualized, distant and abstract conception of God (as against
J's picture of a God treading the earth and concerning himself with specific
human events).41
Latter-day Saint scholars should especially consider
whether the international or desert influences suggested in E could reflect the
situation indicated in D&C 84:6-13, which asserts that a line of priesthood
and sacred knowledge related to but distinct from that in Israel persisted in
the desert from the time of Esaias, a contemporary and associate of Abraham, at
least until Moses and Jethro. The last is an E name, in contrast to J's Hobab;
of course Jethro's father was Reu'El.42 (It is doubtful that Esaias is the same
as the "Ezias" mentioned in Helaman 8:20, given the differing spellings of the
names both of which came to print through Joseph Smith. Textual usage affirms
the difference.)
Some may suggest that the Elohistic features noted above
occur in the Book of Mormon as pure happenstance--that Joseph Smith in authoring
or translating the Book of Mormon phrased the Book in biblical language familiar
to him, some of which would necessarily be similar to E elements preserved in
the King James' version. Chance seems ruled out, however, by Robert F. Smith's
finding that the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price lacks E and appears
to show J and P characteristics but no E.43 Thus Joseph Smith's style is a
doubtful explanation for E features in the Book of Mormon, there being no reason
to think the language used by him would be any different from one volume to the
next--except as the original sources differed.
A Plausible
Synthesis
The record engraved in Egyptian characters on the brass plates
had its origin long before Lehi's day.44 Strong emphasis in this account on
Abraham and Joseph hints that this usage could have begun as early as the visit
of the former to Egypt and certainly no later than the time of Joseph, the
Egyptian vizier. The record probably reached Palestine via the tribe of Ephraim,
Joseph's son. The lineage maintaining this particular account probably continued
living in Ephraimitic territory in northern Israel throughout the time of the
Divided Monarchy, until the 721 B.C. destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the
Assyrians. At that point the plates likely were brought south to Jerusalem by a
relatively wealthy and influential descent group.
Maintaining the brass
plates required becoming literate in the writing system, which was no mean task
in itself,45 and then adding to it sacred materials, history and genealogy as
this information developed through time.46 Although the lineage record was
privately held and controlled, it was known and available to the leading Jews in
Jerusalem.47 No doubt records kept by other groups were in turn known to the
scribes keeping the plates of Laban. Comparing, editing and making new copies
would have been among the scribal functions.
At least two branches of the
kinship unit having custody of the brass plates had developed by the time of
Lehi in the latter half of the seventh century B.C. His family had lost direct
contact with the scribal branch but were aware of some connection.48 The scribal
branch was both wealthy and powerful within the Jerusalem establishment.49
Lehi's branch was also in a substantial status though not prominent.50 Upon
Lehi's determining to leave the kingdom of Judah in anticipation of coming
disaster at the hands of the Babylonians, he had his sons seek the plates of
brass from Laban, the record custodian for the related group. They did obtain
them--with great difficulty-- then departed into the desert, eventually reaching
the New World.
Lehi had lived all his life at Jerusalem, yet he found
himself antipathetic to the Jews there, and they to him.51 His personal
characteristics in some ways stood against those common in the Jerusalem
hierarchy in ways parallel to how the E source differed from J. Lehi was
moralistic, a dreamer, archaistic, with a rather abstract view of God, and more
concerned with historical events and sacred principles than with personalities
or the concrete present.52 Judging by his son Nephi he liked to contemplate the
complex symbolism and distant prophecy of an Isaiah rather than the concreteness
of Jeremiah’s burdens against his contemporaries at Jerusalem.53 He preferred
the clarity of Abraham's and Joseph's god El (Elohim, El Shaddai, El Elyon),
over a Yahweh encumbered and obscured by pagan cult practices of the Jerusalem
of his day.54
The record-keeping tradition begun among the Nephites took
its form out of the character and cultural background of Lehi and Nephi, the two
pivotal persons in the transfer. While we expect some changes took place between
the form and process of tradition-keeping manifest in Lehi's line in Palestine
and that by which the Nephite scribes carried out their responsibilities, a
great deal of continuity is also evident. Nephi, a culture hero, was followed by
his brother, Jacob, who confirmed the religious and literary tradition which his
elder brother had implemented. Both of them preferred prophets who dealt at
length with the Northern Kingdom, Isaiah on the one hand and Zenos on the
other.55 Then later keepers of the Nephite records follou implicitly the pattern
set by these early leaders.56 In this manner an Old World scribal tradition was
transplanted to the New World where traces of it might still be seen two
millennia later.57
In conclusion, there appears good evidence that the
Book of Mormon contains elements which are congruent with what scholars of the
Old Testament distinguish as the E or Elohistic source. To biblical scholars
this congruence should invite serious attention to the Book of Mormon for what
it may reveal to them about Old Testament sources. To Latter-day Saints, the
presence of E materials in the Book of Mormon should serve as a challenge and
stimulus to examine more carefully the scriptures entrusted to them, and to
participate actively and cooperatively in elucidating both the texts and their
interpretations.
Further readings: Kevin Barney gives a good overview of LDS approaches to the Documentary hypothesis in this article.