Identifying the 1 Zenos texts

Acknowledgments: My starting point for this analysis was "What is Malachi doing in 1st and 2nd Nephi?," a Reddit post by someone using the handle stisa79, which Bill Wright brought to my attention; and "Samuel the Lamanite, Christ, and Zenos: A Study of Intertextuality," an Interpreter article by Quinten Barney, which was brought to my attention by a commenter using the handle jason (who, I should probably mention, strongly disagrees with Barney and calls his theory "blasphemy"). My earlier analysis, "Zenos was quoted by Joel, Nephi, Alma, Malachi, and Paul," was published in 2024 but failed to include two key secondary texts.

⁂

1. The Zenos fragments in 1 Nephi 19

The first reference to Zenos in the Book of Mormon is in 1 Nephi 19, where Nephi quotes or paraphrases him extensively.

[10] And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel.

[11] For thus spake the prophet: The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice, because of their righteousness, unto their great joy and salvation, and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness, and by the opening of the earth, and by mountains which shall be carried up.

[12] And all these things must surely come, saith the prophet Zenos. And the rocks of the earth must rend; and because of the groanings of the earth, many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers.

[13] And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel.

[14] And because they turn their hearts aside, saith the prophet, and have despised the Holy One of Israel, they shall wander in the flesh, and perish, and become a hiss and a byword, and be hated among all nations.

[15] Nevertheless, when that day cometh, saith the prophet, that they no more turn aside their hearts against the Holy One of Israel, then will he remember the covenants which he made to their fathers.

[16] Yea, then will he remember the isles of the sea; yea, and all the people who are of the house of Israel, will I gather in, saith the Lord, according to the words of the prophet Zenos, from the four quarters of the earth.

[17] Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed.

In v. 10, Nephi cites, in rapid succession, an angel, Zenock, Neum, and Zenos. In the remained of the passage, he alternates between citing "the prophet" and "the prophet Zenos." I think the most reasonable assumption is that all these references to an unnamed "prophet" also refer to Zenos. However, I do not think 1 Ne. 19:10b-17 represents a single extended quotation. The repeated interpolation of "saith the prophet" and similar expressions suggests that Nephi is stringing together bits and pieces of Zenos material, perhaps with some paraphrasing. Just after this Zenos material, Nephi will go on to quote two whole chapters of Isaiah (1 Ne. 20-21 = Isa. 48-49), introducing it with "Hear ye the words of the prophet" (1 Ne. 19:24) but then never interrupting Isaiah to say "saith the prophet" or anything similar. Nor do the Book of Mormon's other extensive quotations from Zenos (Jacob 5, Alma 33:4-11) contain any such interruptions.

If the Zenos quotations in 1 Ne. 19 are fragmentary, is there any way of reconstructing more of the original text (the hypothetical "1 Zenos") from which Nephi was drawing?

⁂

2. An example of reconstruction from partial quotations

For the purposes of a thought experiment, I used the BYU Scripture Citation Index to find four talks by Mormon leaders in which they quoted or paraphrased parts of Matthew 5:11-12.

Now imagine that, centuries in the future, the original Sermon on the Mount has been lost, and all we have are these talks. Imagine further that the talks have come down to us without the quotation marks and ellipses and footnotes, so that we are left to infer what is a direct quotation, what is a paraphrase, and what is the speaker's own words.

Hanks cites his source as "the Sermon on the Mount" but appears to be summarizing it rather than quoting it in any detail. However, we notice that Lee and Andersen have some of the same language as Hanks, in the same order, and infer that they are referencing that same sermon. Hanks doesn't say anything about being "blessed" or about the persecution of "The prophets which were before you," but since Lee and Anderson share this language, and juxtapose it with language we have already identified as coming from the Sermon on the Mount, we can conclude that this other shared language is from the Sermon as well.

Notice that Packer doesn't use any of the language that Hanks does -- Hanks being our only source that explicitly claims to be referencing the Sermon on the Mount. Nevertheless, by noticing a parallel between Packer and Andersen, after having already concluded that the Andersen passage is quoting the Sermon, we can infer that Packer is likely quoting the Sermon as well.

In our efforts to reconstruct as much as we can of the Sermon on the Mount, we can call Hanks a primary text because we know for sure that it comes from the Sermon. Lee and Andersen are secondary texts, whose connection to the Sermon we infer from their similarity to a primary text. Finally, Packer is a tertiary text, considered to be possible Sermon material because of its parallels with a secondary text.

We could summarize our conclusions about the likely content of the Sermon on the Mount as follows:

The P column is from a primary text, so we are highly confident that it reflects the Sermon. The S + S column contains material that is not in a primary text but occurs in two different secondary texts and is thus also very likely to be from the Sermon. The third column has material that only appears in one secondary text and thus may or may not be from the Sermon. Is "for my sake" something Andersen added himself, or is it Sermon material only he quoted? We can't be sure.

Note that, though "for great is your reward in heaven" appears in two of our texts, we put it in the S column and not an S + T column. That's because this line is our only reason for considering Packer to be a tertiary text in the first place, so it would be circular reasoning to take its presence in Packer as additional evidence that it is from the Sermon.

Finally, the T column has material which only occurs in one tertiary text. If these four talks were really all we had, I would not be at all confident in concluding that this T material came from the Sermon -- unless it filled a conceptual gap, that is, unless the reconstructed text just made more sense with it included, which I don't think is true in this case.

In fact, of course, everything in the tables above does come from the Sermon on the Mount. This has just been a thought experiment to show how we might reconstruct parts of a lost Sermon, and how our confidence in the inclusion of various lines might vary.

The Zenos fragments in 1 Nephi 19 are our primary text, our Hanks. The next step is to look for potential secondary texts -- other passages in the Bible or Book of Mormon that closely parallel the primary text. 

⁂

3. Secondary texts

Much of the language in 1 Nephi 19 (P, our primary text) has parallels elsewhere in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Four secondary texts emerged as potentially informative: Joel 2 (S1, our first secondary text), Matthew 23-24 (S2), 2 Nephi 25-26 (S3), and Helaman 13-15 (S4).

3.1. Joel 2 (S1)

First, we have this brief but fairly specific parallel with Joel 2:

by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness (P: 1 Ne. 19:11)

fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness (S1: Joel 2:30-31)

We have the three elements fire, smoke, and darkness in the same order. Also, where the Hebrew text of Joel has וְתִֽימֲר֖וֹת "pillars," the Septuagint (a third-century Greek translation, possibly reflecting an ancient variant Hebrew text) has ἀτμίδα "vapor," matching the 1 Zenos text (but also matching the Septuagint quotation from Joel in Acts 2:19, so this isn't a "How could Joseph Smith have known that?" moment).

3.2. Matthew 23-24 (S2)

A more extensive parallel is found with the words of Jesus in Matthew. First, the two texts refer to the necessity of what they predict in nearly the same language:

all these things must surely come (P: 1 Ne. 19:12)

all these things must come to pass (S2: Matt. 24:6)

Second, they each juxtapose signs with power and glory:

signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel (P: 1 Ne. 19:13).

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man . . . and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (S2: Matt. 24:30).

Third, they each predict that the Jews will be killed and hated by all nations:

they shall wander in the flesh, and perish, . . . and be hated among all nations (P: 1 Ne. 19:14).

Then shall they . . . kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations (S2: Matt. 24:9).

Fourth, they each talk about people being gathered from "four" places (meaning, figuratively, from all over):

all the people who are of the house of Israel, will I gather in . . . from the four quarters of the earth (P: 1 Ne. 19:16).

they shall gather together his elect from the four winds (S2: Matt. 24:31)

The Joel and Matthew secondary texts share the specific detail of the sun being darkened and something also happening to the moon:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood (S1: Joel 2:31)

shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light (S2: Matt. 24:29)

This detail is not in the 1 Nephi 19 fragments, though it is implied by the general prediction of "darkness." The specific reference to the sun, at least, will prove to be important when we bring in the tertiary texts.

3.3. 2 Nephi 25-26 (S3)

Another secondary text is found in 2 Nephi 25-26. Chapters 12-24 comprise an extended quotation from Isaiah, and Chapter 27 is also an Isaiah commentary, it is not surprising that Chapters 25-26 should also include quotations from and commentary on a prophet, in this case possibly Zenos.

First, each text talks about a divine figure being in a sepulchre, and this is juxtaposed with a reference to a period of three days. The details in the two texts complement one another. 1 Ne. 19 says there will be three days of darkness at his death, and 2 Ne. 25 he will only be dead for three days and then rise from the dead. Neither text by itself says that it will be dark while he is in the sepulchre and light again when he comes out, but that seems to be what the original 1 Zenos text was saying. As we will see later, this is connected with the one in the sepulchre being metaphorically a "sun."

to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death (P: 1 Ne. 19:10)

and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead with healing in his wings (S3: 2 Ne. 25:13)

Second, each passage describes the Lord "visiting" people with thunderings, lightnings, fire, storms, the earth opening up, and mountains moving. The parallels are very extensive here.

The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice . . . and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, . . . and by the opening of the earth, and by mountains which shall be carried up (P: 1 Ne. 19:11).

And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away . . . . And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes . . . for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them (S3: 2 Ne. 26:5-6).

Third, each predicts that the Jews will be "scourged" by other peoples, and this is associated with their rejection of God or Christ. Again, the details are complementary. In 1 Ne. 19, we are told that this punishment comes because they rejected and crucified God. In 2 Ne. 25, we are told that the punishment will continue until they accept Christ, which would make sense if their rejection of Christ was the reason for the punishment.

And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel (P: 1 Ne. 19:13).

And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations . . . until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ (S3: 2 Ne. 25:16).

3.4. Helaman 13-15 (S4)

Probably the most extensive parallels of all are found in Helaman 14. This is part of Samuel the Lamanite's Sermon on the Wall, which comprises Chapters 13-15. This raises some question marks, since the brass plates were kept by the Nephites, and we would not normally expect a Lamanite to be familiar with them.

First, both texts give three days of darkness as a sign of the death of God/Jesus. Both texts specify that the sign is intended for distant isles, not for those in Jerusalem. In 1 Ne. 19, the sign is for those who "inhabit the isles of the sea"; in Hel. 14:20, it is only "upon the face of this land" -- i.e. the Nephites' land, said to be "upon an isle of the sea" in 1 Ne. 10:20 -- that there will be no light.

concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea (P: 1 Ne. 19:10)

concerning another sign, a sign of his death, . . . there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead (S4: Hel. 14:20)

However, Samuel later seems to say that the darkness will be worldwide:

darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days (S4: Hel. 14:27)

Second, the two texts give a similar list, in the same order, of natural phenomena that are to occur at the time of his death:

with the thunderings and the lightnings . . . by tempests . . . and by mountains which shall be carried up (P: 1 Ne. 19:11)

there shall be thunderings and lightnings . . . there shall be great tempests . . . and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great (S4: Hel. 14:21, 23)

Third, they both refer to rocks rending, with Samuel going into some detail:

the rocks of the earth must rend (P: 1 Ne. 19:12)

the rocks which are upon the face of this earth, which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass,shall be broken up; yea, they shall be rent in twain, and shall ever after be found in seams and in cracks, and in broken fragments upon the face of the whole earth, yea, both above the earth and beneath (S4: Hel. 14:21-22)

It was specifically Matthew 24 and Helaman 14 that we identified as having clear links to 1 Nephi 19. For those two secondary texts' links to each other -- which are very extensive -- we will have to go beyond chapter boundaries (which are artificial anyway and not part of the original documents) and compare Jesus' discourse in Matt. 23-24 with Samuel's in Hel. 13-15.

First, both discourses refer to "blind guides," an expression found nowhere else in scripture:

Woe unto you, ye blind guides (S2: Matt. 23:16)

 

Ye blind guides (S2: Matt. 23:24)

Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? (S4: Hel. 13:19)

Second, they condemn the people's killing and mistreatment of past prophets, hitting the main points in the same order:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets . . . And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. . . . Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee (S2: Matt. 23:29-30, 34, 37)

Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived, that ye do cast out the prophets, and do mock them, and cast stones at them, and do slay them . . . ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; . . . if a prophet come among you . . . ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him . . . O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them (S4: Hel. 13:24-26, 33)

It is plausible that Zenos would deliver such a diatribe, since he himself was a prophet who was persecuted and ultimately killed: "the prophet Zenos did testify boldly; for the which he was slain" (Hel. 8:19). Samuel and Jesus faced similar threats, and their quoting Zenos would add a layer of irony: You say you wouldn't have killed the prophets like your ancestors did, but your ancestors who killed the prophet Zenos said the same thing about their prophet-killing ancestors! Both discourses specifically mention the stoning of prophets. Zenock, who is never mentioned without Zenos and may have been an associate (cf. Elijah and Elisha), was stoned to death (Alma 33:17).

Third, both discourses speak of houses being left desolate, in almost identical language:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (S2: Matt. 23:38)

your houses shall be left unto you desolate (S4: Hel. 15:1)

Finally, both pronounce woes on pregnant and nursing mothers:

And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! (S2: Matt. 24:19)

your women shall have great cause to mourn in the day that they shall give suck. . . . and woe unto them which are with child (S4: Hel. 15:2)

The parallels between the Matthew and Helaman texts are so extensive and specific that some sort of textual relationship is undeniable. To skeptics, of course, it's just Joseph Smith plagiarizing the New Testament. Postulating that Jesus and Samuel were both quoting some hypothetical earlier prophet, whose works have conveniently disappeared, would be pure special pleading were it not for the Zenos links. But these links are not obvious, as nothing in the text draws attention to them, and it seems extremely unlikely that Joseph Smith would have worked them in on purpose to give himself an out if accused of plagiarism -- an out which he never used and which was never even discovered until the Internet age. (This is not an attempt at an apologetic. The basic validity of the Book of Mormon is assumed here, not argued for.)

The Helaman text also has links to 2 Ne. 25-26, as both prophecy destruction after the fourth generation from the coming of Christ.

and many of the fourth generation shall have passed away in righteousness. And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people (S3: 2 Ne. 26:9-10)

Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your utter destruction; and this shall surely come except ye repent, saith the Lord; and those of the fourth generation shall visit your destruction (S4: Hel. 13:10)

First, both texts condemn the mistreatment of the prophets, listing the same three actions in the same order.

they perish because they cast out the prophets, and the saints, and stone them, and slay them (S3: 2 Ne. 26:3)

Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived, that ye do cast out the prophets, and do mock them, and cast stones at them, and do slay them (S4: Hel. 13:24)

Second, both speak of choosing darkness rather than light:

they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light (S3: 2 Ne. 26:10)

how long will ye choose darkness rather than light? (S4: Hel. 13:29)

Third, both refer to the anger of the Lord being kindled against people:

the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them (S3: 2 Ne. 26:6)

the anger of the Lord is already kindled against you (S4: Hel. 13:30)

Fourth, both mention signs of Jesus' coming and of his death:

And after the Messiah shall come there shall be signs given unto my people of his birth, and also of his death and resurrection (S3: 2 Ne. 26:3)

this will I give unto you for a sign at the time of his coming (S4: Hel. 14:3)

And behold, again, another sign I give unto you, yea, a sign of his death (S4: Hel. 14:14)

Fifth, both mention the Lamanites dwindling in unbelief and being smitten, but ultimately being shown mercy. Samuel explicitly references Zenos at this point:

After my seed and the seed of my brethren [the Lamanites] shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten (S3: 2 Ne. 26:15).

Yea, even if they should dwindle in unbelief the Lord shall prolong their days, until the time shall come which hath been spoken of by our fathers, and also by the prophet Zenos, and many other prophets, concerning the restoration of our brethren, the Lamanites, again to the knowledge of the truth -- Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites; and notwithstanding the many afflictions which they shall have, and notwithstanding they shall be driven to and fro upon the face of the earth, and be hunted, and shall be smitten and scattered abroad, having no place for refuge, the Lord shall be merciful unto them (S4: Hel. 15:11-12).

Zenos lived before there were any such people as the Lamanites, but one of his prophecies must later have been interpreted as referring to them.

4. Tertiary texts

To summarize so far, our primary text for 1 Zenos is 1 Nephi 19 (P). Secondary texts include Joel 2 (S1), Matthew 23-24 (S2), 2 Nephi 25-26 (S3), and Helaman 13-15 (S4). Each of these has links both to the primary text and to at least one of the other secondary texts.

We now come to tertiary texts, which are linked to one or more of the secondary texts, and perhaps also to each other, but not directly to the primary text. The tertiary texts identified so far are Malachi 4 (T1), 1 Corinthians 3 (T2), 1 Nephi 22 (T3), and Alma 45 (T4).

4.1. Malachi 4 (T1)

Malachi 4 has links to two of our secondary texts: Joel 2 and 2 Nephi 25-26. With Joel it shares this distinctive expression ("terrible" and "dreadful" being alternate translations of the same Hebrew word):

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come (S1: Joel 2:31)

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord (T1: Mal. 4:5)

Note that the two texts differ on what will happen before the great and terrible day.

The parallels with 2 Ne. 25-26 are more extensive. First, they both represent someone or something rising with healing in his wings. Second, if we assume that "Son" in the Book of Mormon is a scribal error for the homophone "Sun," both texts identify this healing figure as the Sun of righteousness.

he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings (S3: 2 Ne. 25:13)

But the Son of righteousness shall appear unto them; and he shall heal them (S3: 2 Ne. 26:9)

But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings (T1: Mal. 4:2)

Third, we have these very closely parallel passages about the proud and wicked being burned as stubble by the coming day:

Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble (S3: 2 Ne. 26:4)

and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts (T1: Mal. 4:1)

4.2. 1 Corinthians 3 (T2)

Both 2 Nephi 26 and Malachi 4 are linked to 1 Corinthians 3 via "the day" that shall burn things, including "stubble":

Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble (S3: 2 Ne. 26:4).

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch (T1: Mal. 4:1).

Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss (T2: 1 Cor. 3:12-13, 15)

4.3. 1 Nephi 22 (T3)

There are extensive links connected 1 Nephi 22 to several secondary and tertiary texts. Nephi also repeatedly cites "the prophet," confirming that he is quoting or alluding to someone else's words.

Otherwise unique language about something being "poured out" "upon all" occurs in Joel 2 and 1 Ne. 22. What is poured out is very different, though:

I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (S1: Joel 2:28)

the wrath of God shall be poured out upon all the children of men (T3: 1 Ne. 22:16)

This use of the same expression to express both a curse (pouring out wrath) and a blessing (pouring out the spirit) is in fact typical of the biblical prophets. As Rachel Margalioth writes:

As this study proves, each prophet expresses praise and blessing by converting derogatory phrases of his own to the good, employing phrases characteristic of his book alone. Consequently, even if we did not know the authorship of a prophecy of comfort such as "Then will I build you, and not break you down, and will plant you and not pluck you up" (Jeremiah XLII:10), it would still be ascribed to Jeremiah -- for only in his book are to be found these very phrases in the contrary meanings: "Behold, that which I have built will I break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up" (Jeremiah XLV:4; and also XXIV:6). . . . This mode of converting prophecies from doom to solace, and vice versa, with the same verbiage for both, proven customary in the prophetic books -- is never the case with two different prophets. We have no example of one prophet expressing good or evil by inverting the expressions of another (The Indivisible Isaiah, pp. 38-39).

Actually, I think we do have one example of a prophet inverting the expressions of another: Joel writes "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears" (Joel 3:10), inverting Isaiah's "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks" (Isa. 2:4; also Micah 4:3). Conveniently, it is Joel that is the one exception to Margalioth's generalization. Either Zenos is inverting his own expression, as prophets are known to do, with one version quoted by Nephi and the other by Joel; or else Joel is inverting Zenos, as Joel is known to do. Either way, Joel is evidence that Nephi is in fact quoting Zenos.

Both Matt. 24 and 1 Ne. 22 juxtapose "power and great glory" with a gathering from four places:

and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds (S2: Matt. 24:30-31)

and the Holy One of Israel must reign in dominion, and might, and power, and great glory. And he gathereth his children from the four quarters of the earth (T3: 1 Ne. 22:24-25)

Very similar language is used in 2 Nephi 26, Malachi 4, 1 Corinthians 3, and 1 Nephi 22 to describe the proud and wicked burning as stubble. An additional link between 1 Cor. 3 and 1 Ne. 22 is the reference to being "saved . . . as by fire."

Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble (S3: 2 Ne. 26:4).

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch (T1: Mal. 4:1).

Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (T2: 1 Cor. 3:12-13, 15) 

For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned . . . Wherefore, he will preserve the righteous by his power, even if it so be that the fulness of his wrath must come, and the righteous be preserved, even unto the destruction of their enemies by fire. Wherefore, the righteous need not fear; for thus saith the prophet, they shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire (T3: 1 Ne. 22:15, 17).

Given the parallels, we can assume that "the prophet" cited in 1 Ne. 22:15 is Zenos and that the part about Satan having no more power over human hearts is also from Zenos.

Both 2 Ne. 26 and 1 Ne. 22 speak of being brought low in the dust and destroyed. The latter text attributes this language to "the prophet":

they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not (S3: 2 Ne. 26:15)

they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet (T3: 1 Ne. 22:23)

Mal. 4 and 1 Ne. 22 use similar language about "calves of the stall":

and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall (T1: Mal. 4:1).

the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall (T3: 1 Ne. 22:24).

4.4. Alma 45 (T4)

Alma 45 uses the "great and dreadful day" language of Joel 2 and Malachi 4:

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come (S1: Joel 2:31)

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord (T1: Mal. 4:5)

But whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites (T4: Alma 45:14)

Both 2 Nephi 26 and Alma 45 juxtapose works of darkness with the passing away of the fourth generation.

and many of the fourth generation shall have passed away in righteousness. And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; . . . for because they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light, therefore they must go down to hell (S3: 2 Ne. 26:9-10)

Yea, and this because they shall dwindle in unbelief and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come (T4: Alma 45:12)

Both Helaman 13 and Alma 45 prophecy war, famine, and pestilence 400 years after the coming of Christ, ending in the extinction of the Nephites before the fourth generation has passed away. One problem with attributing this commonality to Zenos, though, is that both prophets explicitly present this as something that was revealed to them personally (highlighted in blue). My interpretation of this would be that, since Zenos obviously didn't prophesy specifically about "Nephites," it is through their own revelations that Alma and Samuel know to what time and people Zenos was referring.

And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people. . . . And four hundred years shall not pass away before I will cause that they shall be smitten; yea, I will visit them with the sword and with famine and with pestilence. Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your utter destruction (S4: Hel. 13:5, 9-10).

Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief. Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct . . . I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come (T4: Alma 45:10-12).

5. Summary

This diagram shows the nine texts considered here (1 primary, 4 secondary, 4 tertiary; 2 Old Testament, 2 New Testament, and 5 Book of Mormon) and how they are interrelated. As can be seen, each of the texts is linked to between three and six of the others

The next step after this preliminary analysis is to look at the major themes of these texts, try to harmonize the details in each of them, and reconstruct as far as possible the content of the hypothetical 1 Zenos document on which they all draw.

The Brass "five books of Moses" revisited

This is the standard reading of Nephi's list of what is included in the Plates of Brass (1 Ne. 5:11-13):

And he beheld that they did contain:

(1) the five books of Moses [Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy], which gave an account [in Genesis] of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

And also (2) a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah [parts of Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles];

And also (3) 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 [Isaiah,  parts of Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah; plus other prophets like Zenos and Zenock].

In other words, the Brass Plates essentially contained the Old Testament, minus the post-exilic books, plus some other books we no longer have.

As discussed in "Moses and the Exodus: Where the Book of Mormon parts ways with the Torah," I doubt this. In that post, I emphasized that Nephi makes it sound as if all five books of Moses were about the Creation and Adam and Eve, when in fact only a few chapters of Genesis touch on those topics. I've just realized that another reading is possible, one in which Nephi is summarizing the content of each of the five books in turn:

And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of:

(1) the creation of the world,

and also (2) of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

And also (3) a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

And also (4) the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah;

and also (5) many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

The main question this reading raises is why these would all be considered "books of Moses." If we allow ourselves a little flexibility with the punctuation, though, we can modify our reading slightly:

And he beheld that they did contain the five books:

(1) of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world,

and also (2) of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

And also (3) a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

And also (4) the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah;

and also (5) many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

In the King James English which the Book of Mormon so often imitates, a relative clause with which can refer to a person, as in the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father, which art in Heaven . . ." (Matt. 6:9). Under this reading, the five books of the Brass Plates would be: (1) Moses, (2) Adam and Eve, (3) the Jews, (4) the Holy Prophets, and (5) Jeremiah.

Note that I don't think we can assume from the Book of Mormon alone (taking the Bible to be unreliable) that Adam and Eve predated Moses. "Our first parents" is also used to refer to Lehi and Nephi at one point (Hel. 5:6), so it does not necessarily mean the first ancestors of the entire human race.

Idolatry or idleness

A few passages in the Book of Mormon appear to contain errors immediately followed by corrections. This is probably the most obvious instance:

. . . and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace (Alma 24:19).

Since "weapons of peace" doesn't make any sense, the "or" seems to be a correction, meaning "or rather." Since one can't easily erase an error once it has been engraved on a gold plate, it makes sense that errors would be corrected in this way. Alternatively, "weapons of peace" could have been Joseph Smith's slip of the tongue rather than a mistake on the plates, but that seems less likely, since his scribe could have just crossed out the incorrect phrase and written the correct one. The mistake itself could have been made in any language, though.

The following example from Alma, though, seems like it must have been a slip of the tongue on Joseph's part, since it is only in English that idolatry and idleness sound similar.

For those who did not belong to their church did indulge themselves in sorceries, and in idolatry or idleness, and in babblings, and in envyings and strife . . . (Alma 1:32).

This seems to be an error and correction because "idolatry or idleness" is such an odd expression otherwise. The two concepts seem to be unrelated, but they do sound similar in English. However, another possibility is that the text really is equating idolatry with idleness to make some point -- something along the lines of "fasting and prayer, or otherwise rejoicing and prayer" (D&C 59:14). Three other passages in the Book of Mormon, which pair idolatry with idleness but without using similar-sounding words, suggest that this is in fact the case:

Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people; therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields (Mosiah 9:12).

Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity (Mosiah 11:6).

Thus they were a very indolent people, many of whom did worship idols, and the curse of God had fallen upon them because of the traditions of their fathers; notwithstanding the promises of the Lord were extended unto them on the conditions of repentance (Alma 17:15).

This juxtaposition does not occur in the Bible. The closest thing I can think of conceptually is the occasional references to idols as "vanities," for example:

They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation (Deut. 32:31).

The Hebrew words translated "vanities," and pretty clearly referring to the worship of "that which is not God," means "emptiness, futility, uselessness" and is thus conceptually akin to idleness. So perhaps that is the idea behind the "laziness and idolatry" passages in the Book of Mormon: useless people who worship useless things.

The harlot Isabel

This turned out to be unexpectedly lengthy and speculative, but I think the hypotheses it introduces have got legs.

I mentioned this in passing in my last post, "Is El a Lamanite god in the Book of Mormon?", but I don't think "the harlot Isabel" (Alma 39:3) was just a hooker -- which in turn means that "these things" which are "most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost" (v. 5) may not refer primarily to, as the chapter summary in the current CJCLDS edition has it, "sexual sin" (though of course that is abominable, too, as Jacob 2-3 makes crystal clear).

In support of the conventional reading, there is obviously the use of the word "harlot." Beyond that, we are also told that "she did steal away the hearts of many" (v. 4), which could refer to many men falling in love with her. Finally, in calling Corianton to repentance, Alma exhorts him to "go no more after the lusts of your eyes" (v. 9), which sounds like a man being seduced by a beautiful temptress.

And that's it, really. Nothing else in Alma's four-chapter speech to Corianton sounds at all like a lecture on chastity -- again, compare it to Jacob 2-3, which very clearly is a lecture on chastity. Instead, Alma devotes most of his time to doctrinal minutiae about the timing of the resurrection, the meaning of the word restoration, and so on -- none of which would seem to be a high priority if he were speaking to someone so religiously unserious as to be traveling some distance to patronize a top-drawer prostitute when he was supposed to be on a mission.

We are told that Corianton "didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel" (v. 3). In other words, this is not a case of a missionary coming across an alluring prostitute and succumbing to temptation. He left the land of the Zoramites, where he had been preaching, and traveled to another land to be with a specific harlot.

It's odd that Alma would call out the harlot by name if she was just a harlot. In a book with vanishingly few named female characters, where even queens go unnamed, Alma saw fit to mention -- and Mormon saw fit to include in his abridgment -- the name of some prostitute his son slept with? I don't think he's doing that. I think he's calling Isabel a harlot, accusing her of harlotry -- meaning that she wasn't a harlot openly, or in the ordinary sense.

Alma says to Corianton:

Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words (v. 11).

But how did the Zoramites see his conduct if he left the land of the Zoramites and traveled to Siron to do it? It scarcely seems likely that he would have announced publicly that he was going on a road trip for the purpose of sleeping with a particularly famous prostitute. Even if he had been sleeping with hookers in the land of the Zoramites first, that is the sort of sin one commits in secret, not something that would likely become publicly known. It seems that Corianton's great sin was something he did openly.

Also, notice the strangeness of the reference to "those wicked harlots" -- not harlots in general (so Corianton wasn't a common whoremonger), and not Isabel in particular (so it wasn't an individual love affair, condemned as "harlotry" because illicit), but "those wicked harlots," a specific group. Elsewhere in scripture, harlots are never called "wicked," that adjective being reserved for those who patronize them or pimp them out. Here, too, it seems that Alma would be more concerned to condemn Corianton's behavior as wicked rather than that of the harlot. The only other reference in all of scripture to prostitutes being "wicked" is that in Nephi's high mountain vision to "the wickedness of the great whore" (1 Ne. 14:12) -- where it refers not to a literal hooker but to "that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth" (1 Ne. 22:13).

That's what I think we're dealing with here, too: not a call girl but an abominable church. If Corianton did "forsake the ministry" to join a cult, that very likely would have been public knowledge -- converts don't keep it secret; they spread the word -- and it would have undermined Alma's teaching much more directly and seriously than if Corianton had merely struggled with chastity.

Sexual irregularities may have played a role in this cult, as they often do, but not necessarily. False religion itself is consistently referred to in scripture with the language of prostitution. For example, the phrase "go a whoring" occurs 18 times in the Old Testament, and every single time it refers not to literal prostitution but to the worship of false gods. Jeremiah 3 is another clear example, where repeated references to "playing the harlot" refer not to sex but to the nations of Israel and Judah being unfaithful to their God.

As I mentioned in my last post, Isabel is the only name in the Book of Mormon to include the theophoric element Baal, which again suggests the worship of a false god. Specifically, Isabel may be a form of the biblical name Jezebel (pronounced Izebel in Hebrew). This is interesting because, besides the historical Jezebel who championed the worship of Baal in the days of Elijah, there is another woman called by that name in the Bible:

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds (Rev. 2:20-22).

Of course Alma could not have been influenced by John of Patmos, but he may have been using a similar rhetorical device. It is unlikely that this false prophetess's name was actually Jezebel; rather, John calls her that in the same spirit in which he calls Rome "Babylon" and Jerusalem "Sodom and Egypt." Alma may be doing the same thing. Despite all the sexual language used -- seduce, fornication, bed, adultery -- it is pretty clear that "Jezebel" is not merely a woman of loose morals but a religious leader, one who "calleth herself a prophetess." Another interesting parallel is that the condemnation of "Jezebel" is prefaced with "I have a few things against thee," just as Alma tells Corianton "this is what I have against thee" (Alma 39:2). That particular turn of phrase is found only in Revelation 2 and Alma 39.

Alma's reference to Isabel's stealing "away the hearts of many" is also more consistent with the language of false religion than with that of romantic love or lust. For example:

But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them (Deut. 30:17).

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods (1 Kgs. 11:3-4).

The passage about Solomon is particularly clear. Even when it is his wives and concubines that "turned away his heart," the reference is not to love or sex but to false religion.

An even clearer example, using the same verb steal, refers to Alma himself prior to his conversion to religion of his father:

And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them (Mosiah 27:9).

Again, this very clearly refers to drawing people into false religious beliefs or practices, not to sexual seduction.

So if Isabel was a religious leader, what was her doctrine? We can perhaps infer it from the other points Alma makes, and the misconceptions he seems eager to rectify, in the remainder of his speech to Corianton.

First, "concerning the coming of Christ," (Alma 39:15), Alma says:

And now I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand. Behold, I say unto you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming? (v. 17)

If Corianton's unease of mind on this issue came from Isabel, then perhaps she taught either, like Sherem (Jacob 7:7) and Korihor (Alma 30:13) that foreknowledge was impossible or, like mainstream Bible critics today, that the words of prophets always have to do with their own time rather than with the distant future.

Second, Alma says:

I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead. Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection -- or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption -- until after the coming of Christ. Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet (Alma 40:1-3).

Corianton had a problem with the doctrine of the resurrection, but not the one you would expect. Rather than doubting that resurrection was possible, he apparently believed that it was already happening in his time, before the coming of Christ.

Alma's next point is not explicitly tied to Corianton's worries, but we can still assume that that is his reason for bringing up this otherwise seemingly unimportant question and for having "inquired diligently of the Lord to know" (v. 9) more about it:

Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection. And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection? (vv. 6-7)

Alma then addresses misconceptions (presumably those of Corianton under the influence of Isabel) about the meaning of "first resurrection":

Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.

And behold, again it hath been spoken, that there is "a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ" from the dead. Now, we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery. Ye cannot suppose that this is what it meaneth (vv. 15-17).

The passage I have put in quotation marks is quoting Abinadi (Mosiah 15:21), who is the one who introduced the idea of a "first resurrection," so apparently Isabel accepted the authority of Abinadi (who converted Alma Sr., Corianton's grandfather) but interpreted his words differently from Alma.

Alma then begins his discussion of the meaning of "restoration":

Yea, this bringeth about the restoration of those things of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets. The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every "limb and joint shall be restored to its" body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things "shall be restored to" their proper and "perfect frame." And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets (Alma 40:22-24).

The quotation marks indicate that Alma is here paraphrasing (with some parts quoted verbatim) his own former missionary partner Amulek (Alma 11:43-44). However, the first reference to this general "restoration" (as opposed to Nephi's references to the restoration of Israel) is again from Abinadi (Mosiah 15:24).

Alma goes on to refute the false understanding of "restoration" promoted by "some" (i.e. Isabel's group):

And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing. But behold, I will explain it unto thee (Alma 41:1).

He explains that "restoration" means the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished. Then he says:

And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin. Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness (Alma 41:9-10).

Note that Corianton's offense against God concerns "points of doctrine" rather than sexual sin.

Alma moves on to the next "worry" of Corianton's:

And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand -- which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery (Alma 42:1).

As an aside, I note the synchronicity that just this morning I read these lines from Edward FitzGerald's Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam, quoted in The King in Yellow:

Oh Thou who burn'st in Heart for those who burn
In Hell, whose fires thyself shall feed in turn;
  How long be crying, 'Mercy on them, God!'
Why, who art Thou to teach, and He to learn?

As a further synchronicity, FitzGerald notes (though this is not quoted in The King in Yellow) that this tetrastich is supposed "to have arisen from a Dream, in which Omar's mother asked about his future fate," leaving it unclear whether it was Omar or his mother that had the dream. This syncs with the subject of my recent post, "Who had the vision that converted Abish?"

This ends our synchronistic intermission. Back to the harlot Isabel.

Alma's lengthy explanation of the punishment of sinners is not germane to our topic here. He concludes with this:

O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God (Alma 42:30).

To summarize, Corianton's main false beliefs, which we are assuming reflect the teachings of Isabel, are: (1) that resurrection is already happening; (2) that resurrection happens immediately after death, since otherwise what would happen between death and resurrection?; (3) that the "first resurrection" is not a resurrection of the body but the survival of the soul; (4) that "restoration" means being restored from sin to happiness; and (5) that it would be unjust for God to punish sinners.

I think this whole complex of ideas can be traced to a different interpretation of the teachings of Abinadi. He taught:

But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ -- for so shall he be called (Mosiah 15:20-21).

I think a natural interpretation of this is that Christ will bring a resurrection when he comes, but that "there [also] cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection" -- "first" because it happens before the later resurrection brought by Christ. What will be different about the resurrection brought by Christ? Perhaps it is a bodily resurrection, whereas the first resurrection (which has been happening all along) is simply a raising of the spirit after bodily death.

Abinadi certainly seems to be saying in this passage that the first resurrection includes absolutely everyone who dies before the resurrection of Christ. In fact, when Alma quotes Abinadi to Corianton, he even adds the implied word all: "a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ."

Abinadi continues:

And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection. They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death (vv. 22-23).

Here the first resurrection is equated with being "raised to dwell with God" to "have eternal life." In other words, it appears that everyone in the first resurrection -- meaning everyone before the resurrection of Christ -- goes to Heaven. There is no explicit mention of the resurrection of the body. Against the seeming universalism of the preceding verses, these seem to limit the first resurrection to the prophets, those who have believed the prophets, and those who have kept the commandments.

He goes on to include others, too, though, again suggesting universalism:

And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord (vv. 20-24).

Thus far, we can understand how someone might misunderstand Abinadi as saying that all sinners (or at least all before Christ) will be "restored" rather than punished. But how to reconcile this with what Abinadi says next?

But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection. Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim (vv. 26-27).

Alma Sr. had been a priest of Noah but was then converted by Abinadi. Alma Jr. was at first "numbered among the unbelievers" and sought "to destroy the church of God" (Mosiah 27:8, 10) which had been founded by his father on the teachings of Abinadi, but he later converted to his father's Abinadite religion. Now we have Alma Jr.'s son Corianton falling in with Isabel's movement, which apparently accepted the teachings of Abinadi but not those of either of the Almas, for Alma Sr. also implied that not everyone would "be numbered with those of the first resurrection" (Mosiah 18:9). Now it also appears that Isabel did not have exactly the same words of Abinadi as the Almas, for the verses quoted above flatly contradict her doctrine, and one can only "wrest" these things so far.

The words of Abinadi as we have them were written down by Alma Sr. from memory some time after he had heard them (Mosiah 17:4) and are thus unlikely to be strictly accurate. Is it possible that Isabel's movement was founded by someone who was also present in the court of Noah and was converted by Abinadi's words, but remembered them somewhat differently?

And that leads us to another possible significance of the designation "harlot." It is said of Noah and his priests (of whom Alma Sr. was one):

And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots (Mosiah 11:14).

The wording "and so did also his priests" implies that the priests did the same thing that Noah himself did, and that "harlots" is thus a pejorative reference to their own wives and concubines (which they also had; see Mosiah 11:4). For those who condemn polygamy, taking additional wives and concubines is equated with "committing whoredoms" (Jacob 2:23).

What happened to Alma Sr.'s wives and concubines when he converted to the doctrine of Abinadi and fled the court of Noah? Their husband's falling out of favor with the king would have put them in danger, so it seems likely that they would have fled with him. However, the converted Alma could not have remained "married" to any but one of them, and this abandonment might naturally have led to a falling-out. Thus we have a perfect explanation for a woman, called a "harlot," who accepted Abinadi, was at odds with the Almas, and had a somewhat different recollection of what exactly Abinadi had taught: Isabel was one of Alma Sr.'s former wives or concubines. Rather than being a seductive young temptress, she was a woman old enough to be Corianton's grandmother, and perhaps his actual grandmother, or else one of his grandmother's former sister-wives.

If this line of thinking is correct, it sheds light on another question that has bothered me for a long time: Why had Alma Jr. been trying to destroy his father's church in the first place? Actively trying to destroy the church, and to lead away others after him, suggests not mere waywardness but religious zeal. Alma Jr. is often compared to Saul of Tarsus -- the parallels are so obvious that critics accuse Joseph Smith of plagiarizing the New Testament story -- but Saul's motive is clear. Saul was a strict Pharisee (Acts 26:5), Christians venerated a scathing critic of the Pharisees as the Son of God, and Saul saw it as his religious duty to extirpate this heretical sect. Alma Jr., in stark contrast, was the son of the founder and high priest of the very religion he sought to destroy! Where did his heterodox views come from?

If his own mother was Isabel, promulgating a rival interpretation of Abinadi (on whose authority as a prophet Alma Sr.'s church rested), it all makes sense. It also explains his success in "stealing away the hearts of" so many in Alma Sr.'s church and "causing much dissension among" them (Mosiah 27:9). As happened after the assassination of Joseph Smith, different believers in the murdered prophet understood (or in some cases "wrested") his teachings differently and founded rival sects.

This has all been highly speculative, but I think it explains a lot and is thus likely to be a good seed.

Is El a Lamanite god in the Book of Mormon?

No El, no El, no El, no El

-- Christmas carol

(That epigraph is just a throwaway pun, of course, though it is perhaps worth noting that this very old carol includes a non-biblical detail concerning the new star which seems to be right out of the Book of Mormon: "And to the earth it gave great light / And so it continued both day and night.")

Hugh Nibley makes much of the lack of Baal names in the Book of Mormon, asking how the uneducated Joseph Smith could have known that such names happened to be very unpopular around the time Lehi left Jerusalem. I find this completely unimpressive, since no uneducated Christian would expect Israelite names to include the name of this "false god." Besides, the Book of Mormon does include one Baal name: Isabel (Alma 39:3), which is apparently either a form of Jezebel (Hebrew ʾIzeḇel, meaning "Where is Baal?") or is parallel to Isaiah (Yəšaʿyāhū, "Yahweh is salvation"), with Baal replacing Yahweh. This name occurs over 500 years after Lehi left Jerusalem, presumably part of an unbroken tradition of Baal names.

What I do find striking is the relative lack of El names. Of the 300-some proper names that are unique to the Book of Mormon, not a single one of them incorporates the element El. The Bible, in contrast, contains over 300 El-derived names. The El names that do occur in the Book of Mormon fall into three categories:

(1) Names used by Isaiah (Immanuel) and Malachi (Elijah), appearing in the Book of Mormon only where whole chapters from those books are quoted verbatim, by Nephi (2 Ne. 17:14, 18:8) and Jesus  (3 Ne. 25:5) respectively.

(2) References to the biblical figures Israel -- which, significantly, means "fights against El" -- and (probably) Samuel. Jesus' reference to "all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after" (3 Ne. 20:24) presumably refers to the biblical Samuel, since Samuel the Lamanite was a very recent prophet.

(3) Lamanite-affiliated names: Lemuel, Ishmael, and Samuel. These are the only El names that belong to Book of Mormon rather than biblical figures, although the names themselves are biblical.

The original founders of the Lamanite group were Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, Ishmael himself having died before the schism. The land of Ishmael was Lamanite territory, "being called after the sons of Ishmael, who also became Lamanites" (Alma 17:19). As for Samuel, he is scarcely ever mentioned without a reminder that he is a Lamanite. I strongly suspect that the Lamanites adopted El as their primary name for God, after which the Nephites stopped using it.

But isn't el just a common noun referring to any god or tutelary spirit? Yes, and so is baal a common noun meaning "lord." That doesn't stop such names from becoming associated with a particular religion, leading those who oppose that religion to avoid them. Even in English, God generally implies the specific god worshiped by Christians and some Jews.

We know that the Nephites and Lamanites used different names for God, because the Lamanite king of Ishmael (500-some years after the departure from Jerusalem) doesn't understand the name of the Nephite deity:

And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

And he said, Yea.

And Ammon said: This is God (Alma 18:24-28).

The Lamanite name for God is translated as "Great Spirit" -- thus possibly the biblical El Elyon, "the highest el."

What was the primary Nephite name for God? Not Baal, obviously, per Nibley (Isabel is a "harlot," probably the leader of a false religion like the Jezebel of Rev. 2:20-22, whose work as a self-proclaimed "prophetess" is called "fornication" and "adultery"). The next obvious candidate would be Yahweh. Certainly that name was used, as as the last verse in the book refers to "the great Jehovah" (Moro. 10:34). As an element in names, it occurs in the Nephite names Jeremiah, Joshua, and Zedekiah, all of which are biblical. It is likely that these Nephites were named after Hebrew figures rather than with specific reference to Yahweh (just as we use names like Martin and Dennis without intentional reference to Mars and Dionysus). The only non-biblical Nephite names that seem to incorporate Yahweh are Amalickiah and Mosiah. It has also been suggested that the distinctive -ihah ending in Ammonihah, Cumenihah, Mathonihah, Moronihah, Nephihah, and Onihah (though cf. the Jaredite name Orihah) may be a form of Yahweh.

Nibley has proposed that, given the Egyptian connection, Amon or Ammon (king of the gods in Egypt, also rendered Amen) may have been used as a divine name by the Nephites. The main objection to this is that Ammon itself appears as a personal name in the Book of Mormon. While names incorporating the names of gods are common, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would be named simply God. Whether or not it is a divine name, it does seem to occur in a lot of Nephite names, including (allowing for some variation in the second vowel) Aminadab, Aminadi, Ammonihah, Amnigaddah, Amnihu, Amnor, and Helaman. Since only one of these has a double m, it is possible that Amon (or Amin or Aman) was a divine name and that Ammon meant something else. If we allow Omn as a variant, we might add Gadiomnah, Omner, Omni, and Teomner to the list (though cf. Antiomno, a Lamanite). It's an interesting possibility, especially given Joseph Smith's own use of Ahman or Aumen as a name of God.