No If's, And's, or Or's About It: Alma 13 Has Interesting Ancient Connections
by Jeff Lindsay
In
my last
post,
I discussed the possibility that the word "or" in the Book
of Mormon sometimes served as Mormon's equivalent of a delete key,
allowing him to correct an engraved mistake with the correction that
followed.
I
should note that this is still somewhat speculative. Some LDS
thinkers such as Val Sederholm are not so sure that the apparent
corrections using "or" are due to Moroni's engraving
coupled with a highly literal translation. Instead, they might
represent Joseph Smith's verbal adjustment of a just-dictated phrase
that struck him as odd.
Val's
differing perspective is offered in a discussion of an intriguing
phrase in his post, "'Weapons
of Peace' in Alma 24:19 and in Ancient Egyptian Borrowings from
Hebrew."
He suggests that while "weapons of peace" sounds crazy in
English (as critics have frequently pointed out), it may actually a
plausible phrase for a Semitic text written in a form of Egyptian:
New
Kingdom Egyptian uses Hebrew sha=ra=ma (*shalama or
*shallema) to
express a nuanced idea of peace (Hoch, Semitic
Words,
#407, 285). For Professor Hoch, the word conveys two related
actions:
"The word is used of putting away weapons," and
"The word is also used more generally with the sense of 'seeking peace.'"
He
accordingly defines the word as follows: "Vb. 'To Lay Down
(Arms); Seek Peace.' " It is the first of these definitions that
hits the reader of the Book of Mormon with a shock of recognition.
...
Semitic languages modify the verbal root by means of
prefixes, doubling of letters, and so on, to express passive,
factitive, causative, and reflexive meaning. Grammarians call such
modifications of the root morphological
verbal stems.
For
instance, D-stems are so called because they double
(Doppelstamm) the
middle consonant of the triliteral root; D-stems sometimes carry
causative meaning, sometimes they are factitive, i.e., they make
nouns into verbs.
Several Semitic languages show variations on
the verbal root sh-l-m in
order to express the making of peace or even the laying down of arms.
The Biblical Hebrew H-stem of sh-l-m
(the causative stem with prefixed -h)
signifies "to make peace"; in Talmudic Aramaic the
causative A-stem signifies "to make peace; surrender"; the
D-stem in Syriac, "to surrender; make peace"; the D-stem in
Old South Arabic, "to sue for peace"; in Ethiopic
(D-stem?), "to make peace"; and, finally, the D-stem in
Arabic, which specifically refers to weapons: "to lay down
(arms); surrender" (examples all from Hoch, 285, see also
284.)
Egyptian makes no use of morphological verbal stems
(though some traces of old reflexive N-stems persist), nevertheless,
as Hoch says, *shalama
(peace), when adopted (and adapted) into that language, was
used not only as a noun but also as a verb: "to greet, make
obeisance, do homage, to lay down (arms), to seek peace." What a
word!
And it is only because such a borrowed and
subsequently "frozen" nominal form can also find expression
as a verb, something peculiar to Egyptian among the Afro-Asiatic
languages (though recalling in function the Semitic factitive stem),
that we can imagine a noun phrase weapons
of peace.
Alma's phrase
is, perhaps,
a literal rendering into English of an appositive genitival
construction along the lines of Egyptian x'.w.wshalama.
Weapons in
Egyptian is x'.w.w/x'y;
peace
is now shalama,
and thus we have: "weapons in respect of peace"; "in a
state of peace" (really a verbal expression); or, literally
enough, though awkwardly, "weapons of peace" or "peaceful
weapons."
"Peace Weapons"? "Peaceful
Weapons"? No wonder the Prophet Joseph Smith struggled with
the phrase.
Yet
because shalama also
does the work of a verb, x'w.w
shalama
can be read "weapons laid down in an act of submission or
peace," or "weapons put into a state of peace" —
what we would call "deactivated." (Indeed anthropology has
much to say about the ceremonial stilling of the arms of war.)
Val
feels it is more plausible to see the correction preceded by "or"
to represent Joseph's words rather than Moroni's. On the other hand,
I would propose that in spite of the Egyptian correctness of "weapons
of peace," it might still have struck Moroni as a potential
source of confusion for future readers, so he might have added the
corrective phrase to be helpful, not because he had just made a typo
in need of correction.
The
debate between tight translation and loose, functional translation of
the Book of Mormon is an interesting one. Brant Gardner, a scholar
who has made important contributions to our appreciation of the Book
of Mormon text and its Mesoamerican elements, has argued that the
translation was largely functional.
In
sharp contrast, others have argued the presence of numerous Hebraisms
in the Book of Mormon text, many of which sound awkward in English
and sometimes required correction to more standard English, point to
a translation process that often may have been fairly direct, enough
so that evidences of its Semitic origins were preserved in the
choices of specific words and phrases.
The
argument for tight controlled was extended by Royal Skousen, whose
extensive study of the Book of Mormon text in the original manuscript
dictated by Joseph and the printer's manuscript led him to conclude
that the many examples of non-standard English dictated to give the
original manuscript were not merely non-standard English
characteristic of less educated people in Joseph Smith's day, but
actually represented standard Early Modern English from the early
1500s, slightly preceding the English of the King James Bible.
Why
that would be is still unclear, but it's interesting.
Loose
or tight control? There are arguments for both, and I think advocates
of both theories recognize there were times when both systems were
used. At times the translation process was clearly, even down to
giving the spelling of some Book of Mormon names letter-by-letter.
Gardner
feels the tight translation used in the transmission of names are the
unusual exceptions, whereas Skousen's analysis of the data suggests
to him that the words and phrases dictated frequently had tight
control.
Perhaps
Joseph generally had inspired access to a tight rendition of the
text, which could then be rephrased when he desired or felt a need,
or could at other times be rendered to preserve a tight translation.
The
Hebraisms, the examples of chiasmus, some of the grammar that seems
awkward today, and other details, including some of the uses of "or,"
may point to access to a tight translation that could preserve such
touches from the original.
Back
to the issue of "or" as an apparent correction tool, I ran
into one of these examples in Alma 13 during recent scripture study
with my wife. Alma 13:16 is the passage that has the corrective "or."
It
is not listed as one of the examples
cited by Mary Lee Treat
in discussing the possibility of "or" as evidence of
someone writing a text without erasers, but she does list Alma 13:24
which may be a typo for verse 16. Here is the passage I'd like to
discuss, with the corrective "or" phrase in bold:
14 Yea,
humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who
was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who
also took upon him the high priesthood forever.
15 And it was
this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our
father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.
16 Now these
ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people
might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his
order, or it being his order, and this that they might look
forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter
into the rest of the Lord.
17 Now this
Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had
waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone
astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;
18 But
Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of
the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach
repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and
Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he
was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he
did reign under his father.
19 Now, there
were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none
were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made
mention.
Did
Moroni engrave "type of his order" and then realized he
didn't mean to include "type"?
Perhaps.
As with the Alma 24 example previously discussed, one can also argue
that this once again is not necessarily an error in need of
correction, but a case where an added clarification would be helpful.
The
priesthood organization is based on God's order, but, come to think
of it, it actually is His order. I can see the original editor,
Mormon, making this clarifying or corrective comment, and could
accept it as Joseph's clarifying addition in his occasional role as
an active translator.
Whether
it is evidence for the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text
originally engraved on gold plates is unclear.
However,
the rest of the quoted passage does offer more meaningful and
interesting evidence of plausibility.
First,
the emphasis on Melchizedek as a highly significant ancient character
in the Jewish religion is consistent with very recent discoveries,
including the Dead Sea Scrolls where Melchizedek plays a prominent
role, and recent research by non-LDS scholar Margaret Baker pointing
to Melchizedek as a central figure of the earliest forms of Judaism
that were being stamped out in Lehi's day and thereafter.
For
a quick overview of what she has said on this topic, see Tim Barker's
post on the LDS
Studies
blog, "Margaret
Barker on Melchizedek."
The
passage in Alma 13 has been criticized for stating that Melchizedek
was a high priest, but there are quite a few ancient documents which
show that this concept is not necessarily Joseph's innovation. See
the discussion on my LDSFAQ
page on alleged problems in the Book of Mormon.
Another
alleged innovation of Joseph Smith is the statement that Melchizedek
reigned under his father — contrary to the apparent implication
of Hebrews 7:3 about Melchizedek having no father or mother. If
Melchizedek's father was also a king, as the Book of Mormon implies,
then Melchizedek was both a prince and a king. Thus, he could be
called a prince of peace, as the Book of Mormon states.
Were
these Joseph's innovations, or is there evidence that Melchizedek's
father actually was a king? Georgius Cedrenus, a twelfth-century
Byzantine historian, wrote Historiarum Compendium which
summarized a variety of earlier sources. In section 27D of the Greek
text, available as a translation by John Gee in Traditions about
the Early Life of Abraham, pp. 269-271, we read:
At
this time Melchizedek, a virgin priest without genealogy, flourished,
foreshadowing by bread and wine the bloodless sacrifice of Christ,
our God. Melchizedek was the son of the king of Sidon, the son of
Egypt, who also built the city of Sidon. Fatherless and motherless
and without genealogy means that he does not descend from the Jewish
genealogy, and because his parents, being wicked, are not counted
among the pious. (p. 270)
If
Georgius Cedrenus is correct, then the statement about Melchizedek
reigning under his father in Alma is entirely plausible, for his
father was a king (and the passage again confirms the fact the
Melchizedek had parents, consistent with Alma 13).
Further,
the above passage suggests that Melchizedek lived among wicked
people, as Alma 13 teaches, for his own parents were counted as
wicked.
Alma
also implies that Melchizedek had been given special emphasis in
ancient sources available to him: "of whom they more
particularly made mention." What is the source for this, given
that Melchizedek's name only occurs twice in the Old Testament? He is
given very little emphasis in the modern Bible.
There
are some hints that ancient Jewish documents and traditions put
additional emphasis on Melchizedek as a priest or heavenly figure. I
have already mentioned the document 11QMelch, the Hebrew
Melchizedek scroll from cave 11 at Qumran, which sees Melchizedek as
an immortal figure of great importance.
Wright
himself briefly refers to the significance of Melchizedek in ancient
traditions, referring readers to 10 sources for more information on
"traditions about Melchizedek in Early Jewish, Qumran, Rabbinic,
Christian, and Gnostic literatures" (footnote, p. 167).
Further,
in a footnote on page 170, he writes that "Horton notes that a
factor for this description of Melchizedek to be considered along
with the silence of Genesis 14 is that this is the first place in the
Pentateuch where a priest appears. This has special significance and
receives special attention."
In
another footnote also on page 170, he cites several other works which
discuss a possible "hymnic" source for Hebrews 7:3,
suggesting that early Jewish poetry dealt with Melchizedek.
The
enigmatic early Jewish text, Secrets of Enoch, puts special
emphasis on Melchizedek. In a passage dealing with Nir, a brother of
Noah, we read that Nir's deceased wife miraculously gave birth to the
amazing child Melchizedek:
Noah
and Nir feared greatly, for the child was completely grown and spoke
with his mouth and blessed the Lord. And Noah and Nir examined the
child and declared: This is from the Lord, my brother! Behold the
seal of the priesthood on his breast!
Noah
said to Nir: Brother, behold the Lord has restored the dwelling of
his sanctification among us. And they washed the child and clothed
him in the robes of the high Priest and he ate the bread of
benediction, and they called him Melchizedek.
And
Noah said to Nir: Guard the child, for the people have become wicked
on all the earth and will try to kill him. Nir, praying to God, was
told in a vision of the night: "A great destruction is
coming.... As to the child [Melchizedek], I will send my archangel
Michael and he will take the child and place him in the Paradise of
Eden ... and he will be my priest of Priests forever, Melchizedek.
And
Nir ... said I know that this race will be destroyed entirely, and
Noah my brother will be saved for the procreations, and that a
numerous race will arise from his seed and Melchizedek will become
the head of Priests."
Secrets
of Enoch 23, in Vaillant, Le Livre des Secrets, pp. 80, 82, as
cited by Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, vol. 2 of The
Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Company, 1986, p. 29.
James
Davila of St. Mary's College at the University of St. Andrew in
Scotland has discussed ancient traditions about Melchizedek. One
example is his lecture, "Melchizedek as a Divine Mediator,"
given February 10, 1998 and summarized at
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/dmf/melchizedek/
(also here),
where he states, "My own reading of the texts is that Genesis is
drawing on traditional material from the Judean royal cult (or
perhaps even from pre-Israelite traditions) to tie the more recently
introduced figure Abram to Jerusalem (Salem) and its temple cult.
Psalm
110 seems to indicate that there was a priesthood of Melchizedek tied
to the Davidic king in the temple cult." Many other scholars
agree that there were movements or traditions linked to Melchizedek
which are just touched upon in the existing Biblical references to
this important figure.
Although
Melchizedek appears in only three places in the Bible (Gen.14.18-20;
Ps.110; Hebrews 7 [add to this brief mentions in Heb. 5:6,10; and
Heb. 6:20]), there are many more traditions about him in the
Qumran texts, in the Targums, in Rabbinic tradition, in the Nag
Hamadi Gnostic texts, in the Greek, Latin and Syriac Fathers and in
Coptic Liturgy.
He
is cited in support of several different arguments, but he must have
been a controversial figure as he is not mentioned in the Targum of
Psalm 110, and his name is very obviously missing from Jubilees
13.25-26. [note from J.L.: James Davila argues that Jubilees
originally contained material on Melchizedek that was later
suppressed.]
In
recent years he has become the object of much interest as it is now
quite clear that there was a large body of pre-Christian tradition
about Melchizedek that is later attested in both Jewish and Christian
materials.
Modern
books dealing with the history of doctrine do not notice that the
oldest form of teaching about the universal priesthood has its roots
in traditions which were also known to the Rabbis.
The
polemics and the narrower views were a later development. In the
light of this study of Melchizedek, it is also clear that the
character of the sacrificial meal, the Eucharist, must take account
of the priesthood of Christ as Melchizedek, who offered bread and
wine to Abraham.
Perhaps
due to the rarity of very early documents, it is difficult to know
what additional writings concerning Melchizedek, if any, might have
been available on the brass plates that Alma had.
But
given the growing evidence of Melchizedek's importance in traditions
of the ancient world, it is not unreasonable for the Book of Mormon
to contain a reference to others who gave emphasis to the role and
greatness of Melchizedek.
Those
who think that Joseph Smith simply made up this information about
Abraham and Melchizedek should explain why there are both ancient
Jewish and Christian sources providing support for these supposed
innovations.
Whether
"or" comes from Mormon or Joseph Smith, other fine details
in this passage point to ancient origins based on knowledge not
accessible to Joseph Smith. It is a passage that some have pointed to
in arguing that Joseph imply borrowed from the New Testament,
exposing his work as a modern innovation based on plagiarism since
Paul has some similar language in Hebrews 7 (see my
discussion of these claims of plagiarism based on Paul).
However,
those claims fall in light of common ancient sources that can be the
basis of the shared concepts, and interesting ancient sources for the
seemingly unique information in the Book of Mormon that cannot be
explained by copying from the Bible.
These
fine details such as Abraham reigning under his father and being a
high priest require some degree of "tightness" in the
translation, though not necessarily at the level that would preserve
Hebraisms and awkward grammar.
Tight
or functional, the details of the Book of Mormon in Alma 13 and in
many other sections point to something much more intriguing that
crude plagiarism by an uneducated Joseph or even Joseph aided by a
secret dream team of leading scholars from his day. No if's, and's,
or or's about it.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.