Intertextuality in 2 Zenos (Jacob 5)

Vincent Van Gogh, Olive Trees (1889)

The 2 Zenos text (as quoted in Jacob 5) has significant parallels to three different biblical texts: Isaiah 5, Luke 13, and Romans 11. In this post I will lay out the parallels and attempt to discern the direction of the influence.

⁂

A. Isaiah 5 and 2 Zenos

Both of these texts are quoted in the Book of Mormon (in 2 Nephi 15 and Jacob 5, respectively), so we know that the Nephites had both of them. Here are the main parallels between the two.

1. Both are about a vineyard, and both explicitly say that it is an allegory about "the house of Israel." For Isaiah, Israel is the vineyard itself; for Zenos, it is an olive tree in the vineyard. These are the only two places in scripture where the house of Israel is associated with a vineyard. The "plant" to which Isaiah's parallel metaphor likens the men of Judah means in Hebrew "that which is planted"; it could refer to an individual plant such as the olive tree of Zenos, or it could mean "plantation" and refer to the vineyard as a whole.

For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant (Isa. 5:7).

I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard (Jacob 5:3).

2. Both texts say that the vineyard "brought forth" unwanted "wild" fruit. In Isaiah, there is no explanation for this; the well-cultivated vineyard spontaneously produces "wild grapes" (literally "stinking or worthless things" in Hebrew). In Zenos, the lord of the vineyard has grafted tame branches onto wild olive trees, which is why these trees bring forth a combination of tame and wild fruit. The only other reference to wild fruit in scripture is the story of the "wild gourds" served to the prophets in 2 Kgs. 4:39.

 

"he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes" (Isa. 5:2)

"wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" (Isa. 5:4)

 

"the other part of the tree hath brought forth wild fruit" (Jacob 5:25)

"a part thereof brought forth wild fruit" (Jacob 5:45)

3. In both stories, the owner of the vineyard asks rhetorically, in almost the same language, what more he could possibly have done for the vineyard.

"What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" (Isa. 5:4) 

 

"What could I have done more for my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:41)

"But what could I have done more in my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:47)

"What could I have done more for my vineyard?" (Jacob 5:49)

4. Both texts juxtapose pruning and digging, a combination that is not found elsewhere in scripture. In Zenos, the lord of the vineyard and his servant repeatedly prune and dig about the olive trees in an attempt to save them. In Isaiah, the owner of the vineyard refuses to do so.

"it shall not be pruned, nor digged" (Isa. 5:6)

 

"I will prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:4)

"he pruned it, and digged about it" (Jacob 5:5)

"And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned" (Jacob 5:11)

"Let us prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:27)

"I have digged about it, and I have pruned it" (Jacob 5:47)

"Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them" (Jacob 5:64)

"I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it" (Jacob 5:76)

⁂

B. Luke 13 and 2 Zenos

1. Both are about a fruit tree (not a grapevine) in a vineyard. There are no other references in scripture to anything other than grapes being grown in a vineyard.

"A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard" (Luke  13:6)

 

"like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard" (Jacob 5:3)

2. Both refer to the unfruitful trees as "cumbering the ground." The verb cumber is not to be found elsewhere in scripture, except in Luke 10:40 ("Martha was cumbered about much serving"), where it is a different word more literally translated as "distracted."

"cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?" (Luke 13:7) 

 

"that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:9)

"all sorts of fruit did cumber the tree" (Jacob 5:30)

"I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground" (Jacob 5:44)

"Let us go to and hew down the trees . . . that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:49)

"and the bad be hewn down . . . that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard" (Jacob 5:66)

3. Both have the owner of the vineyard "dig about" and "dung" the unfruitful trees. "Dig about" is to be found nowhere else, except in Job 11:18. Dung as a verb is found nowhere else.

"I shall dig about it, and dung it" (Luke 13:8)

 

"I will prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:4)

"he pruned it, and digged about it" (Jacob 5:5)

"And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about" (Jacob 5:11)

"Let us prune it, and dig about it" (Jacob 5:27)

"I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it" (Jacob 5:47)

"dig about the trees" (Jacob 5:63)

"Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them" (Jacob 5:64)

"I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it" (Jacob 5:76)

⁂

C. Romans 11 and 2 Zenos

1. Both passages juxtapose firstfruit (or first fruit) with root and branches. Neither of these latter words is juxtaposed with firstfruit anywhere else in scripture

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches (Romans 11:16)

I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit (Jacob 5:60)

2. Both speak of branches being broken off and the branches of a wild olive tree being grafted in.

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them" (Romans 11:17)

"they came to the tree whose natural branches had been broken off, and the wild branches had been grafted in" (Jacob 5:30)

3. Both refer to "sparing" the tree or its branches.

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee (Romans 11:21).

But, behold, the servant said unto the Lord of the vineyard: Spare it a little longer. And the Lord said: Yea, I will spare it a little longer, for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard (Jacob 5:50-51).

4. Both refer to "the natural branches" of the olive tree being grafted "in again."

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:23-24)

And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree; And the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree; and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one (Jacob 5:67-68).

⁂

D. Other related texts

In 1 Nephi 10, Lehi gives a brief version of the olive tree allegory. There is no reference to wild branches or wild fruit, only to the natural branches being broken off and scattered and then later grafted back in. Most of what is in this summary can be found in Romans 11, with the exception of the "house of Israel" reference (as in Isaiah 5 and 2 Zenos) and the mention of the broken branches being scattered in many places (as in 2 Zenos).

Yea, even my father spake much concerning the Gentiles, and also concerning the house of Israel, that they should be compared like unto an olive tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

Wherefore, he said it must needs be that we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth.

And after the house of Israel should be scattered they should be gathered together again; or, in fine, after the Gentiles had received the fulness of the Gospel, the natural branches of the olive tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer (1 Ne. 10:12-14).

In 1 Nephi 15, Nephi comments on these words of Lehi, explaining them to Laman and Lemuel. This explanation also says nothing about the wild branches or wild fruit. The main thing it that distinguishes it from 1 Ne. 10 is that it mixes vine and olive symbolism, as only 2 Zenos does, speaking of "the true vine" as apparently interchangeable with "the true olive tree."

And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the olive tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.

Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a branch of the house of Israel?

And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, . . . they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?

Behold, I say unto you, Yea; they shall be remembered again among the house of Israel; they shall be grafted in, being a natural branch of the olive tree, into the true olive tree (1 Ne. 15:7, 12-16).

This mention of "the true vine" (there are no "true" trees or vines in 2 Zenos) brings in John 15 as yet another possibly related text. This refers to "withered" branches (mentioned four timed in 2 Zenos) and unfruitful branches being "cast . . . into the fire" and "burned" (mentioned 11 times in 2 Zenos). Branches that bear no fruit "he taketh away," which seems different from casting them into the fire and may refer to the brances being grafted into other trees scattered around the vineyard, as in 2 Zenos.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. . . .

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned (John 15:1-2, 4-6).

In Alma 16, Mormon again references this "true vine" and specifically mentions grafting.

That they might not be hardened against the word, that they might not be unbelieving, and go on to destruction, but that they might receive the word with joy, and as a branch be grafted into the true vine, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord their God (Alma 16:17).

In Alma 13, Alma perhaps references 2 Zenos with his reference to "all parts of our vineyard."

[W]e are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard (Alma 13:23).

⁂

E. How are all these texts related?

Our preferred solution -- the simplest one under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is basically legit -- would be that 2 Zenos is the oldest text, that all the others are influenced by it, and that this is sufficient to account for parallels between the Book of Mormon and certain New Testament texts.

I think this works for our main texts. Consider the central image in each:

• 2 Zenos: an olive tree in a vineyard
• Isaiah 5: a vineyard
• Luke 13: a fig tree in a vineyard
• Romans 11: an olive tree

If 2 Zenos is the original, each of the others takes one aspect (vineyard, tree in vineyard, olive tree) of its more complex image. If the biblical texts came first and Joseph Smith created the 2 Zenos text, he took three different allegories about three different crops and combined them into a single integrated story -- which is not impossible to do, of course, but is more difficult and unlikely than the reverse. Were it not for the Luke 13 text, I would have said that Zenos's incongruous olive tree in a vineyard was evidence of a story cobbled together from two different sources, one about an olive tree and the other about a vineyard -- but the parable in Luke about a fig tree in a vineyard shows that perhaps vineyards with crops other than grapes are not so incongruous after all.

The main sticking point is the "true vine" language used in John 11, 1 Nephi 15 (which also has "true olive tree"), and Alma 16. Mormon may have had access to the New Testament, which potentially explains Alma 16, but 1 Nephi 15 -- the words of Nephi, unedited by Mormon -- cannot be explained in that way. I also don't think it works to assume that the "true vine" comes from 2 Zenos. Unlike the 1 Zenos fragments in 1 Nephi 19 -- which are obviously just that, fragments of a larger text -- Jacob 5 seems to be a complete Zenos text quoted in its entirety. At present, I have no good explanation for the "Johannine" language in 1 Nephi 15 other than the sort of "contamination" discussed in "Lehi, Nephi, and the pillar of fire that "dwelt upon a rock": A case study of hard-to-define biblical parallels."

The Twelve Tribes against the Twelve Apostles

The first part of Nephi's high mountain vision deals with the conception, birth, baptism, ministry, end execution of Jesus Christ -- the resurrection is, strangely, omitted -- and presents no real problems. It is consistent with the stories we have in the New Testament. After Christ's execution on the cross, though, things get a little confusing:

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord. And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw.

 

And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: "Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great.

 

And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: "Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (1 Ne. 11:33-36).

This can be seen as a reference to the fact that the early church was persecuted. What is strange is the angel's insistence that "the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb." In the history we know, it was primarily the Romans that persecuted the early Christians, and though the Jews also participated, it certainly wasn't the gathered House of Israel, a term which always refers to all Twelve Tribes being reunited, as in the LDS Article of Faith, "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes" (A of F 10). The Ten Tribes disappeared in the eighth century BC and remain "lost" to this day. James, one of the apostles against whom these gathered tribes are supposed to be fighting, addresses his epistle "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1).

Furthermore, elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, Jesus himself seems to say that the tribes will not be gathered until they accept him as their Redeemer:

And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.

And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfil the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel (3 Ne. 16:4-5).

If the House of Israel is not gathered until after they accept Christ, why would they have "gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles"?

One possible interpretation is that the gathering in Nephi's vision is figurative. The tribes weren't literally gathered together any more than they were literally in a single "large and spacious building." Rather, the apostles went out into the world, meeting hostility wherever they went -- tradition has it that Matthew was killed in Ethiopia, Bartholomew in Armenia, Andrew in Greece, Thomas in India, and so on -- and in this way the Twelve Tribes, while still physically "scattered abroad," were figuratively "gathered" or united in their fighting against the apostles.

Another possibility is that "after he was slain" means thousands of years after he was slain (or just that Nephi saw this after he saw Jesus slain, which may or may not correspond to historical chronology). The fight may be still in the future, after the promised "literal gathering of Israel" -- which would mean the "twelve apostles" must be someone other than the biblical figures to whom that term usually refers, but this is hardly a problem for Mormons, who already accept that many different groups of twelve men can be and have been called by that title.

It is even possible that Nephi's use of the term has no reference to Jesus' disciples during his mortality at all. Notice how the Twelve are first introduced in the vision:

And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove. And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.

And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.

And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out (1 Ne. 11:27-31).

First Nephi sees scenes from the life of Jesus. Then he sees "twelve others following him" -- which may mean coming after him in time -- and these are then "carried away in the Spirit" so that he no longer sees them. Rather than this referring to anything that happened to the apostles themselves, I think this may just mean that this part of the vision ended, and he went on to the next scene. The next scene is "angels descending upon the children of men" -- When did this happen? It could have been any time -- and then the scene changes back to the life of Jesus. The Twelve are explicitly removed from the scene before this, and there is no mention of their appearing in the subsequent scenes of Jesus' life. This is consistent with the possibility that they are not contemporaries of the mortal Jesus.

If the Twelve Apostles in the vision are not the familiar New Testament characters, who might they be?

It's interesting that immediately after seeing the Twelve "carried away in the Spirit," Nephi sees angels descending and ministering. The number of angels is not specified, but could it be the same Twelve, now translated or resurrected beings? This brings me back to my 2023 post "Who were the 13 luminous beings Lehi saw in his Jerusalem vision?" This, you will recall, is what Lehi saw in that vision:

And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth (1 Ne. 1:9-10).

In that post, I pointed out the identical language used in the two visions -- "twelve others following him" -- but thought the Twelve seen be Lehi couldn't be the apostles seen by Nephi because they descended from Heaven and didn't seem to be ordinary mortals. Now, though, I see that Nephi's vision does suggest that the Twelve Apostles may have been carried off to Heaven and then descended again as "angels."

What is meant by these angels "descending upon the children of men"? This unusual language is only found in other place in scripture:

And he [Jesus] saith unto him [Nathanael], Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man (John 1:51).

Here the angels both ascend and descend -- just as in Nephi's vision, if the Twelve are in fact the same beings as the angels. In my 2019 post "Notes on John 1," I had this to say about that verse of the Gospel:

"The angels of God ascending and descending" certainly sounds like a reference to Jacob's dream -- "And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it" (Genesis 28:12) -- with the Son of man playing the role of the ladder.

The use of "descending upon" makes sense in John 1 because Jesus is metaphorically Jacob's Ladder. What does it mean in Nephi's vision, where the angels descend not upon a singular Son of Man but "upon the children of men"?

The only other "descending upon" in scripture refers not to angels but to the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus:

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him (Mark 1:10).

One likely interpretation of this is that the Spirit of God entered Jesus at this point, making him fully divine. Could Nephi mean something similar, with angelic spirits entering the bodies of mortals?

In my post on Lehi's Jerusalem vision, I proposed that the twelve star-like beings he saw descending out of heaven might be the patriarchs of the Twelve Tribes. Could it be these same patriarchs, as glorified "angels," that "descend upon" or enter the Twelve Apostles? Later in Nephi's vision he is told:

Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel (1 Ne. 12:9).

This would certainly make sense if the Twelve Apostles are in some sense the Twelve Patriarchs.

In my post on Lehi's Jerusalem vision, I noted that each of the Twelve Tribes is associated with a holy book and even used language suggesting that each book almost embodied one of the patriarchs:

If Joseph -- in the form of the book kept by his tribe, the plates of brass -- will go forth unto all nations, what of the other 11 starry beings who also go forth? Well, according to Nephi's later prophecies, each of the other tribes will also produce a holy book, and these, too, will go forth to the world.

And this brings me to the symbol of the Cherubim, or the Four Living Creatures -- who symbolize both the Twelve Tribes of Israel (see "The Throne and the World" for details) and, by a later tradition, the authors of the four canonical Gospels. And this reminds me of my own 2024 vision, recorded in "Étude brute?", in which I was shown a book and told

This book is the Cherubim. Not the Book of the Cherubim, but the Cherubim themselves.

Well, this post has certainly raised more questions than it has answered. I'm just thinking aloud and welcome comments.

What did Alma know, and when did he know it?

At the very beginning of Nephite history, Nephi himself prophesied that Jesus would come 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem:

"Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews -- even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world" (1 Ne. 10:4).

"And behold he cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem" (1 Ne. 19:8).

"For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (2 Ne. 25:29).

However, when Alma the Younger is preaching an Ammonihah circa 82 BC, he appears to be unaware of this prophecy, as he says they "know not how soon" Christ will come:

And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice (Alma 13:25).

The skeptical explanation for this discrepancy goes something like this: According to the well-established theory of Mosiah priority, Joseph first dictated the lost 116 pages, then continued dictating from Mosiah 3 (now Mosiah 1, as the first two chapters were lost) to the end of the book, and finally went back and dictated from 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon. By the time he dictated the "small plates" books, Joseph Smith no longer remembered many of the details from the lost 116 pages, but he was worried that the pages might resurface at any time and didn't want there to be any discrepancies. That is why the "small plates" books give so few historical details and name so few of the characters. To pad out this section and make up for the lack of any detailed history, Joseph Smith filled the small plates with lots of prophecies, including Nephi's detailed visions of the future. The problem was that he didn't know he would later be creating these visions for Nephi at the time he dictated "large plates" books like Alma, and so the characters in that part of the book are inexplicably ignorant of what Nephi prophesied.

The only believing explanation I have encountered is simply that, for whatever reason, the contents of the small plates were just not common knowledge among the later Nephites. In support of this, we have Mormon circa AD 385 speaking of the small plates as if they were some obscure document buried in the archives, which he had not known about before:

And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi (W of M v. 3).

So it appears that, whatever the reason may be, Alma the Younger did not have access to the small plates. One problem with this assumption, though, is that in his words to his son Helaman circa 74 BC he appears to quote from them directly:

Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there (Alma 36:22).

The passage in boldface is a 20-word verbatim quote from the small plates:

And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God (1 Ne. 1:8).

If we want to maintain that Alma really didn't have the small plates, I guess the explanation must be that this passage was also in the lost 116 pages.

For the believer, the large plates, believed to have started with a Book of Lehi, would surely have contained an account of Lehi's Jerusalem vision, and Nephi's own account of that vision would likely have quoted some of his father's language directly. Alma wasn't quoting Nephi; rather, both Alma and Nephi were quoting Lehi.

For the skeptic, it is unlikely that Alma's quote would match the language of the lost 116 pages exactly, since Joseph Smith didn't have those pages when he wrote Alma. But when he was writing the replacement text ("small plates"), Smith referred to Alma and made sure to make Lehi say what Alma had said he'd said. If Smith was doing this, though, he wasn't very consistent about it. For example, Alma claimed that Lehi and Nephi called the ball Liahona (Alma 37:38), but Smith apparently forgot to include that word in the replacement text.

I've been familiar with the above arguments for some time. However, not until my umpteenth rereading of Alma just today did I notice another highly relevant passage. This is Alma addressing his son Corianton circa 74 BC

And now, my son, this was the ministry unto which ye were called, to declare these glad tidings unto this people, to prepare their minds; or rather that salvation might come unto them, that they may prepare the minds of their children to hear the word at the time of his coming (Alma 39:16).

Here Alma starts to say that Corianton is to prepare the minds of the people to hear Christ when he comes, but then he corrects himself and says that no, actually, it's to help them prepare their children to hear Christ when he comes. This implies that Alma knows Christ is not coming soon enough for people who are adults in 74 BC to hear him themselves but is coming soon enough for those people's children to hear him. In other words, he appears to know the date of Christ's coming with considerable precision, and this is in stark contrast to what he had said just eight years earlier -- when he said "we know not how soon" Christ will come and seemed to entertain the possibility that it would be in his lifetime.

So in 82 BC, Alma doesn't know when Christ is coming -- but then in 74 BC he (1) appears to quotes verbatim from 1 Nephi and (2) suddenly does know when Christ is coming. This strongly suggests to me that at some point between those two dates, Alma gains access to the small plates and becomes familiar with their contents.I'm going to have to go back through the relevant portion of the Book of Mormon with that hypothesis in mind and see if I can find any hints of exactly when and how that might have happened.

Further evidence for the Zenos theory

My recent dream about how "There's no Second Isaiah" (see my post "In New York, about the only garbage they won't pick up is sunglasses") prompted me to look into the evidence that the Book of Isaiah had a single author, in contrast to the mainstream position -- usually presented as an established fact -- that chapters 40-66 are by a much later author or authors. So I got an electronic copy of The Indivisible Isaiah: Evidence for the Single Authorship of the Prophetic Book (1964) by Rachel Margalioth and started reading it.

Much of Mrs. Margalioth's method consists of finding distinctive words and expressions that are found in both parts of Isaiah (1-39 and 40-66) but in the writings of no other prophet. The sheer number and specificity of these parallels in style and word choice does indeed make it hard to avoid the conclusion that the book is the work of a single author. As Mrs. Margalioth writes:

This indicates not only a uniformity of style, but also to a uniform trend of thought. This reveals the innermost recesses of human thinking wherein idea and language are woven into one web, and there can be no room for a stranger. This is the style of a man which is the man himself. Our [Jewish] sages must have meant just this when they declared that no two prophets speak in identical style (p. 42).

This got me thinking about Zenos, the otherwise unknown prophet whose work is quoted in three parts of the Book of Mormon. Since these three texts differ greatly in genre and style, it is reasonable to assume that they are quoting three separate Zenos documents rather than a unified "Book of Zenos." For ease of reference, I will give them names:

• 1 Zenos (fragments of which are quoted or paraphrased in 1 Ne. 19:10-17): a prophecy about the distant future, mot notably including the death and resurrection of a Jesus-like figure
• 2 Zenos (quoted in Jacob 5): an extended allegorical story about olive trees
• 3 Zenos (quoted in Alma 33:4-11): a short, psalm-like composition on the subject of answered prayers

That's a pretty small sample -- 102 verses in total, compared to the 1,292 verses of the Book of Isaiah -- but I thought it might be worthwhile to check to see if any of the three Zenos texts share any distinctive wording not found elsewhere. If they do, that would be consistent with Zenos being a real person.

I found no such parallels, which is perhaps not entirely surprising given how short all but one of the texts are.

I did find something else, though. In my 2024 post "Zenos was quoted by Joel, Nephi, Alma, Malachi, and Paul," I propose -- building on the work of a Redditor who goes by Stisa79 -- that several other texts in both the Bible and the Book or Mormon also quote or allude to 1 Zenos. I establish this by showing that these uncredited Zenos quotations share distinctive language with the 1 Zenos fragments in 1 Ne. 19 and with each other. One of my commenters then found a paper by Quinten Barney using a similar method to show that two other texts might be influenced by 1 Zenos. I found additional links connecting these two to the texts I had found. I've been meaning to write an exhaustive post about all the scriptural texts that likely quote or allude to 1 Zenos, but I got bogged down in the sheer volume and complexity of all the links I would have to document, and so I haven't finished it yet. Anyway, my current list of texts likely influenced by 1 Zenos is:

• Joel 2
• Malachi 4 (discovered by Stisa79)
• Matthew 23-24 (discovered by Quinten Barney)
• 1 Corinthians 3
• 1 Nephi 22 (discovered by Stisa79)
• 2 Nephi 25-26 (discovered by Stisa79)
• Alma 45
• Helaman 13-15 (discovered by Quinten Barney)

Although I didn't find any direct linguistic links between the 1 Zenos fragments and 3 Zenos, I did find links between 3 Zenos and two of the texts in the above list, which I believe to have been influenced by 1 Zenos. Here are the relevant verses:

Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy destruction (Alma 33:10, explicitly quoting 3 Zenos).

And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, . . . And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for . . . when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul (2 Ne. 26:6, 10-11, with strong links to 1 Zenos). 

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 (Hel. 13:10, with strong links to 1 Zenos).

Alma 33:10 and Hel, 13:10 are the only verses in all scripture to include the words {enemies, visit, anger, destruction}. With the exception of enemies, the words even occur in the same sequence in both texts.

The phrase "speedy destruction" occurs twice in 2 Ne. 26:10-11, once in Alma 33:10, and nowhere else in scripture. Both passages also include visit and anger.

This obviously falls far short of the sheer volume of parallels connecting the two parts of the Book of Isaiah, but I still think it counts as a little more evidence in favor of the reality of Zenos.

I haven't yet done any intertextual study of Jacob 5 (2 Zenos), more because it's really long and boring than for any more respectable reason. Once I do that, I'll try to put together a single article covering the Zenos text exhaustively.

Hollow pillars of light or fire

Ritchie Valens put this in my mind. When you don't speak Spanish, even a common Spanish word has relatively few mental associations, so for me the word arriba is associated with (1) "La Bamba," (2) Speedy Gonzales, and (3) the Spanish translation of Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his First Vision. This last is something I heard recited every week by my Spanish-speaking colleagues when I was a Mormon missionary. I never actively tried to memorize it, but I heard it so many times that to this day I can still recite it verbatim:

Vi una columna de luz, más brillante que el sol, directamente arriba de mi cabeza; y esta luz gradualmente descendió hasta descansar sobre mí. . . . Al reposar sobre mí la luz, vi en el aire arriba de mí a dos Personajes, cuyo fulgor y gloria no admiten descripción. Uno de ellos me habló, llamándome por mi nombre, y dijo, señalando al otro: "Éste es mi Hijo Amado: ¡Escúchalo!"

The ellipsis is not mine. The missionaries memorized a slightly edited version of what Smith wrote, removing the reference to the demonic attack he experienced immediately before the vision. Here's the original English:

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other -- This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (JS-H vv. 16-17)

Despite the clear description of "a pillar of light exactly over me head," artwork tends to show the light as being located in front of Smith and not really in the form of a pillar with clear boundaries. This is probably the best known artistic depiction:

This is one of the few that shows Smith himself inside the pillar of light, as described:

The strangest feature of this pillar of light is that it "descended gradually until it fell upon" Smith. This means it was not at all like a beam of light shining down from the heavens, which would instantaneously (in a nanosecond per foot traversed) reach the ground, but was more like a moving object with a particular shape -- apparently that of a cylinder -- and a clearly defined bottom (and so perhaps also a clearly defined top?). When the pillar first appeared, the bottom of it was still high above Smith, and then it gradually descended until it reached him.

It was not until the pillar of light rested on Smith that he was able to see the two Personages, who were presumably (but are not said explicitly to have been) inside the pillar. One possible explanation of this would be that the "walls" of the pillar radiated brilliant light in one direction only, namely outward. Since the pillar was "above the brightness of the sun," it would of course be impossible for anyone looking into it from outside to see anything at all. The inside of the pillar must have been considerably less bright. Otherwise, he still wouldn't have been able to see anything -- and it's hard to imagine the two Personages being so bright as to be notable for their "brightness and glory" even against a background that was brighter than the sun.

This idea of a hollow pillar of light which can have people inside it also appears in the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by fire, even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned. And when they saw that they were encircled about with a pillar of fire, and that it burned them not, their hearts did take courage. For they saw that the Lamanites durst not lay their hands upon them; neither durst they come near unto them, but stood as if they were struck dumb with amazement (Hel. 5:23-25).

Nephi and Lehi were not in the fire but "encircled about" by it. The fire apparently had the form of a hollow cylinder. Those in the center were not burned, but those on the outside were afraid they would be if they got too close. Thus, as with Joseph Smith's pillar of light, the radiant energy seems to be directed only outward. It seems likely that the Lamanites could not actually see Nephi and Lehi at this point, just as Smith could not see the Personages inside the pillar until he, too, was inside it.

Later in the same chapter, the Lamanites repent and find themselves inside a pillar of fire with Nephi and Lehi:

And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire. And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory (Hel. 5:43-44).

In the past, I visualized each person being encircled about by his own pillar of fire, but now I think the most natural reading is that there was a single pillar of fire encircling them all. From the fact that nothing was burned, not even "the walls of the prison," I take it that this was more properly a pillar of light, like Smith's, called "fire" because they didn't know what else to call it.

The other main scriptural account of Beings inside a pillar is in Exodus, where the Lord is sometimes in a "pillar of fire" and sometimes in a non-radiant "pillar of cloud":

And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people (Ex. 13:21-22).

It is understood that the people didn't actually see the Lord himself when he was in the pillar. As with Joseph Smith, what was inside the pillar could not be seen from outside it.

The Lord could see out of the pillar, though:

And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians (Ex. 14:24).

It is strongly implied that Moses went inside the pillar when he saw God face to face:

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle (Ex. 33:9-11).

It's not entirely clear that Moses was inside the pillar, as he "entered into the tabernacle," while the pillar "stood at the door of the tabernacle." However, the people saw only the pillar, while Moses himself probably saw the Lord, and the best explanation is that Moses was inside the pillar with him.

Who concealed the Gadiantons' secret plans?

In the 75th or 76th year of the judges, Nephi son of Helaman says in a prayer that the band of Gadianton has been eradicated. I have added in brackets the implied referents of the third-person pronouns and possessives, noting that one of them is ambiguous.

O Lord, behold this people repenteth; and they [the people] have swept away the band of Gadianton from amongst them [the people] insomuch that they [the Gadiantons] have become extinct, and they [who?] have concealed their [the Gadiantons'] secret plans in the earth. Now, O Lord, because of this their [the peoples'] humility wilt thou turn away thine anger . . . (Hel. 11:10-11).

The first possible reading is that the people have demonstrated their humility by (1) repenting, (2) wiping out the Gadianton band, and (3) concealing the Gadiantons' secret plans in the earth.

The second possible reading is that the people have been so successful in sweeping away the Gadianton band that that the Gadiantons have (1) become extinct and (2) been forced to conceal their secret plans in the earth.

The first is the most natural reading for a couple of reasons. First, "their humility" definitely refers to the humility of the people, but that reading would be difficult if the three instances of they/their preceding it all referred to the Gadiantons. Second, it is unnatural to say that the Gadiantons "have become extinct and" done something else; they obviously would have had to conceal their plans before they became extinct, and so it would be more natural to say that first in the sentence. If the meaning of the passage is that, although the Gadiantons' themselves have become extinct, their plans are still hidden somewhere in the earth, we would expect a but rather than an and. Because of its naturalness, I assume many readers of the Book of Mormon (including myself until very recently) take the first reading for granted and don't even notice the ambiguity.

The official Chinese translation of the Book of Mormon removes the ambiguity and makes the first reading the only one possible. It says, essentially, that the people have "repented, wiped out the Gadiantons, and concealed their secret plans." The subject of all these verbs can only be "this people."

However, the Russian translators made the opposite call: "они скрыли свои тайные планы" can only mean "they hid their own secret plans." If anyone other than the Gadiantons themselves had hidden the plans, the correct possessive would be их rather than the reflexive свои.

Despite what I have said about the naturalness of the first reading, I can see the Russians' point of view, too. Why would the people who eradicated the Gadiantons themselves carefully conceal the Gadiantons' secret plans instead of just destroying them? Years later, people dig up the plans and use them to start a Gadianton revival. For that even to have been possible, the plans must have been intentionally buried in such a way that they would be preserved -- something analogous to Moroni writing on gold plates and burying them in a stone box. It's hard to imagine any motive for the enemies of the Gadiantons to do that.

If the Gadiantons themselves buried the plans so that they would be preserved for future generations, that raises questions, too. It suggests that the "secret plans" were not just a playbook for criminal mischief but were seen by the Gadiantons as having some almost religious value.

I'm still trying to work out possible understandings of the whole "secret plans" plot point. I just want to document this ambiguity in the text first and see what other people think.

The end of the endless

In D&C Section 19, the Lord explains that when the punishment of the damned is described as "endless" or "eternal," this does not necessarily mean that it has no end:

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.

Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery . . . . I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -- Eternal punishment is God's punishment. Endless punishment is God's punishment (D&C 19:6-8, 10-12).

I'm sure I'm not the only Mormon to have found this passage a bit embarrassing. The doctrine that damnation is not necessarily eternal is a good one, but the explanation for that doctrine presented here just reads like sophistry. Really, we're supposed to distinguish between "endless" and "no end"? Also, the claims about what is and isn't written aren't even true. There are passages that say there shall be "no end" to the torment of the damned:

. . . not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end (1 Ne. 14:3).

. . . their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end (2 Ne. 9:16).

These can be explained away -- the first passage says only that hell itself has no end, not that any particular soul will stay there forever; while the second only says their torment is like a fire that has no end -- but again, this feels like sophistry, an attempt to make the text say something other than its plain meaning.

⁂

It turns out, however, that there are several passages in the Book of Mormon that do speak of "everlasting" or "eternal" or "endless" torment that nevertheless does have an end. For example, here is Alma the Younger recounting his conversion experience:

Nevertheless, after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death, the Lord in mercy hath seen fit to snatch me out of an everlasting burning, and I am born of God. My soul hath been redeemed from the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity. I was in the darkest abyss; but now I behold the marvelous light of God. My soul was racked with eternal torment; but I am snatched, and my soul is pained no more (Mosiah 27:28-29).

Alma very clearly says that he has experienced "eternal torment," but that that experience had an end, and he is tormented no more.

Here is telling the story again:

But I was racked with eternal torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins. Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell . . . . And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul. . . .

I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more. And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! (Alma 36:12-13, 16, 18-20).

Alma's "eternal torment" -- which he equates with "the pains of hell" and "of a damned soul" -- lasted "for three days and for three nights." It was eternal, but also of a relatively short duration.

Here is Ammon describing the salvation of the Lamanites:

Yea, they were encircled about with everlasting darkness and destruction; but behold, he has brought them into his everlasting light, yea, into everlasting salvation; and they are encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love; yea, and we have been instruments in his hands of doing this great and marvelous work (Alma 26:15).

Here again, the "everlasting darkness and destruction" are clearly stated to have had an end.

Finally, here is Moroni, talking not about damnation but about death:

And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death (Morm. 9:13).

Here the end of the endless is about as explicit as can be: "an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened."

This last quote, from Moroni, is the least amenable to the D&C 19 treatment. "Endless sleep is God's sleep"? In what sense does the sleep of death pertain to God? I think the obvious reading is that death, unlike ordinary sleep, is potentially endless. Death is a sleep that would last forever, were it not for divine intervention. It is endless by nature, and yet it may end. To quote Lovecraft, who has been in the sync-stream recently,

That is not dead which can eternal lie,

And with strange aeons even death may die.

I think "eternal damnation" should probably be understood in the same way. It is naturally and potentially endless, and yet its end may be brought about if God and Man so choose.