On the ASOR blog, Hannah K Harrington, Chair of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Patten University. discusses the Temple Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The scroll discusses the 2nd Temple (built by Nehemiah).

The Temple Scroll has the temple’s dimensions at approximately the size of the city of Jerusalem, saying that the outer court of the temple comprised at least the city itself.  She notes from other concepts that the power and holiness of the temple even reached out further to all of Israel’s cities, as the people had to live the laws of purification throughout the land.

While one had to be holy to enter into the temple, the temple also had the power to emanate holiness out to all the people, placing them in God’s presence, even if indirectly.

For Latter-day Saints, we can appreciate this concept, as our local chapels are often the place where we discuss the blessings of modern temples, bishops interview members for worthiness, and we partake of the Sacrament to renew covenants of holiness.  In our homes, many LDS have a photo of a temple(s) to focus the family on the House of God.  The temple’s holiness, then, emanates out to our homes and chapels, making us more holy and prepared to be in the presence of God, whether in the temple itself, or in another holy place sanctified by the power of the temple.

Nibley – An Approach to the BoM, ch 8, Politics in Jerusalem

For me, this is a very interesting chapter in Nibley’s An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  He groups this chapter with the two following, and prefaces them as the “Doom of the City”.

Why is the city of Jerusalem doomed?  In this chapter he gives a very important reason.  The Lord has given his authority and power to the king and prophets, but this has been replaced with a new group, what Nibley calls the “new aristocracy.”  King Zedekiah has limited power because of the Sarim or elders that hold the real power.

As I see it, Zedekiah is one to be pitied.  Babylon has already removed his brother as king, and placed him in the position to see all the demands of Babylon be granted.  Yet, Jerusalem, the temple priests and its elders (Sarim) are beholden to Egypt.  He is between a rock and a hard place. We note in the book of Jeremiah that Zedekiah actually calls Jeremiah to him at night to get guidance, and rescues him from death on at least one occasion.  Yet, he never takes a strong stance either way.  As a weak king, he seeks a balancing act, which never works as he would hope, and ends in disaster as Babylon runs out of patience with the upstart nation.

The Sarim or elders are a new aristocracy.  The king does not have the power he did in the times of David or Solomon.  Instead, he is more of a figure head, waiting to anger some group and lose his place.  So, who are the Sarim?

Since Nibley’s writing, several Old Testament scholars, such as Margaret Barker, have written regarding the drastic change in the religion under the Deuteronomists in Josiah’s time.  Josiah being a small child when made king, could easily be manipulated by the temple priests to do their will.  In his reforms, Josiah destroyed the high places or wilderness altars of Yahweh/Jehovah, removed the concept of angels and the Tree of Life/Asherah out of the temple service, and left the Jews with a watered-down version of the ancient religion.

Jeremiah would bring the sons of Rechab into the temple to show the elders and temple priests (who could have been one and the same), how true Israelites worshiped God.  In essence, Jeremiah was telling them that the temple in Jerusalem had lost its way, and these Israelite Bedouins were right in sacrificing at altars in the wilderness.  Later, we’ll see Lehi follow the pattern of the Rechabites by also offering sacrifice in the wilderness, resembling Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in so doing.

We will see that this issue of old and new aristocracy becomes a major issue in the Book of Mormon.  The Nephites begin their story with kings that descend from Nephi, whom God has anointed to be their leader.  Yet, we see challenges to this authority, first by Laman and Lemuel (who represent the new aristocracy in Jerusalem), and later by the Mulekites/Jaredites in Zarahemla.  When Mosiah II rearranges the political structure to Judges, he still seeks to retain the chief judge position for only Nephites. However, a century later, we find that the new aristocracy, which included Gadiantons, would take over the chief judge’s seat and wreak havoc upon the traditional and God ordained position of leadership. Only with the coming of Christ to the Nephites, is this position fully returned to a proper aristocracy of leadership under Nephi and the 12 disciples (none of which have a Jaredite name). This unauthorized change in authority again occurs, the 12 disciples are removed from earth, and it leads to the destruction of both Jerusalem and the Nephites.

Not wanting this to be a politics thread, we could look to see how our own Republic has changed over the years.  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe definitely depicted an aristocracy of leadership.  However, we find Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson seeking to democratize the system, abandoning the old aristocracy and allowing a man born in a log cabin to become our 16th president.  Could Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage occur under our original aristocracy? Or did it require a change similar to Mosiah II changes, needing to change the structure of his society, in order to provide greater freedoms, while retaining much of the original aristocratic power?  How far can we bend the system, until it becomes something totally different that no longer works?  Will we see Josian-like reforms to government and perhaps religion that make them no longer acceptable by God, and unworkable for man?

When Nephi states he built a temple, he says it is after the manner of Solomon’s temple.  Why Solomon’s?  Why not the temple built by Nehemiah and Ezra?  Why not the temple after the Josian reforms?  Clearly there was an ancient order to be preserved, which new Sarim elders of authority were corrupting.  Nibley notes that Korihor and Nehor seek the old priestcrafts that destroyed Jerusalem.  This isn’t the priests of Solomon’s day, but of Zedekiah’s day.

For more on the Documentary Hypothesis, see here.

Lesson 37 is now on my blog. I discuss in detail my views on the Doctrine of Christ, and how it is the key and center piece of the Book of Mormon and of LDS theology.

http://joelsmonastery.blogspot.com/2012/09/book-of-mormon-lesson-37-whosoever-will.html

Read there / comment here!

Nibley – An Approach to the BoM, chapter 7, Dealings With Egypt

In this chapter, Hugh Nibley shows that travel between Egypt and Palestine was more common than we often think.  While Lehi’s contact with Egypt seems mostly cultural, he notes that there is a business side of things, as well. Nibley deals with trade and travel via land and sea between Egypt and the Levant.

He first discusses the cultural reliance that Israel had with Egypt. “Students have often speculated of recent years on the strange and suicidal devotion of the Jews to the cause of Egypt in the time of Zedekiah.”

Israel was heavily involved in Egypt’s culture. Not only were the people in Palestine influenced by the Egyptian calendar, but also influenced their records.  Elephantine, a Jewish colony on the Nile river, was later the location for a Jewish temple.

Official seals from the reign of Hezekiah, and other kings of the era, are designed with scarabs and other Egyptian symbols.  It is very clear that Israel and other nations in Palestine had a cultural love affair with Egypt.

Interestingly, Egypt has three methods to influence other nations:,

“The first degree was rule by direct force, the second by “fear of reconquest which a few garrisons and agents and the prestige of the conqueror could keep alive in the minds of indirect administrators and native subjects,” and the third degree “meant little more than a sphere of exclusive influence, from which tribute was expected, but, not being secured by garrisons or representatives, . . . tended to be intermittent.””

This was very different than some other nations of the period, such as the Assyrians, which tended to destroy their enemies and redistribute the peoples to other lands, so as to destroy them as a nation, and make them Assyrian subjects.  Such is what happened to the lost tribes of Israel.

So popular was Egyptian culture that the language was known in many cities, and Syrian princes sent their children to Egypt to be educated.  We can imagine Hezekiah and others doing the same thing.

“Lehi’s main business was with Egypt, carried on both by land and sea.”

While Nibley clearly shows that there is trade going on between Egypt and Israel, I’m not sure if he gives enough evidence to clearly substantiate this statement above.  Yes, Egypt’s culture greatly influenced Israel and there was trade. It may be that Lehi had business with Egypt, but was it really his “main business”?

That Sidon is a predominant location in the Book of Mormon definitely shows a cultural tie. It shows a tie between Lehi and the Phoenicians of the city. Never do we see the word, Tyre, as the people were corrupt in their trading.  We see Israel trading for raw metals, which they turned into fine products to trade with the rest of the world  But there is an intermediary in Tyre and Sidon.  I’m unsure as to how much Egyptian influence traveled via sea to and from Lehi in business.

That we can see that Lehi had favored nations with which to deal, shows us we definitely see a very complex person being developed in Lehi.

Nibley – An Approach to the BoM ch 6 – Lehi and the Arabs

Nibley now will show evidence of Lehi’s involvement in the Arab and Bedouin world.  He notes, “Since the only comprehensive study of this theme is a chapter of Lehi in the Desert, we can do no better in this lesson than to quote that chapter, with necessary alterations and additions.”

While it is humorous that he would quote himself so extensively, I can think of no other person in the 1950s with the qualifications to write or discuss such a topic as he.

Nibley notes regarding the Tribe of Manasseh:

“Now of all the tribes of Israel, Manasseh was the one which lived farthest out in the desert, came into the most frequent contact with the Arabs, intermarried with them most frequently, and at the same time had the closest traditional bonds with Egypt.The prominence of the name of Ammon in the Book of Mormon may have something to do with the fact that Ammon was Manasseh’s nearest neighbor and often fought him in the deserts east of Jordan… The semi-nomadic nature of Manasseh might explain why Lehi seems out of touch with things in Jerusalem. For the first time he “did discover” from records kept in Laban’s house that he was a direct descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:16). Why hadn’t he known that all along? Nephi always speaks of “the Jews who were at Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 2:13) with a curious detachment….”
Continue reading →