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. (Sorry about the background, which renders it a little difficult to read.Not my site.)