I was recently in a theological discussion over dinner with a Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) while in Cambridge during the weekend. One of the issues that were raised against the antiquity of the Book of Mormon was the issue of the Law of Moses amongst the Nephites. My Reformed interlocutor argued that the Book of Mormon shows a poor grasp of the Law of Moses due to the Nephites, who were not Levites, offering sacrifices and building temples and similar structures outside of Jerusalem, as well as the religious freedom amongst the Nephites, something which he viewed to be problematic vis-à-vis Book of Mormon authenticity.
A lot of this “problem” was more or less repeated in 1831 by Alexander Campbell in Delusions, so this is not a novel argument though one does hear it quite often. For this reason, I will blog on this issue so there will be a ready-reference on this issue here.
Firstly, the Law of Moses is accurately depicted, albeit very subtly and in ways Joseph Smith could not have “faked” over, even allowing him to have a good grasp of the Bible when he produced the Book of Mormon. One of the best articles on this, which to this day remains unanswered by critics of Book of Mormon historicity, is that of John A. Tvedtnes, “King Benjamin and the Feast of Tabernacles.” Even in areas where some critics have argued the Book of Mormon messes up things, it comes out being authenticated by recent discoveries, such as the issue of Mosiah 2:3 and the firstlings of the flock.
Secondly, there are many instances of non-Levites, both before and after Exo 19, engaging in priestly activity (e.g., offering up sacrifices). As I wrote in my paper, “The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts":
Old Testament Prophecies of the New Covenant Priesthood
A common misconception among many is that the concept of priests and priestly actions are part of the Law of Moses, and, further, only Levites, after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, engaged in priestly services and sacrifices that were acceptable to God. However, this is far from the case. Before God established the Levitical priesthood, there were priests among the Israelites. For example, Noah (Gen 8:20); Abraham (Gen 12:7); Jacob (Gen 31:54, 46:1) and Jethro (Exo 18:12) offered sacrifices that were accepted by God. In Exo 19:22, 24:4-5, mention of priests and young men offering sacrifices before the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood are mentioned. Even after the establishment of the Levitical Priesthood, other Israelites offered sacrifices and/or were priests. For instance, Micah consecrated one of his sons to be his priest (Judg 17:5), although later he took a Levite to be his priest (Judg 17:11-12). Gideon offered a sacrifice (Judg 6:20-28), as did David (2 Sam 6:13), Manoah (Judg 13:15-23), and the prophet Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kgs 18:30-38). Moreover, David’s sons were priests in 2 Sam 8:18 (the Chronicler altered this in his history, instead giving them the position of chief officials in the service of the king [2 Chron 18:17]), and so was Ira the Jairite (2 Sam 20:26).
For a book-length study of the Israelite priesthood and its background, see Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood.
Additionally, it was seen as proper amongst the people at Jerusalem to erect altars and even temples if one was a certain distance away from the cultic centre of Jerusalem. This is evidenced by the temples at Arad and Elephantine, for instance. Those officiating at the temple in Jerusalem were aware of these temples, and in the case of the latter, allowed them to rebuild part of the temple after it suffered damage, but as a result, to cease offering animal sacrifices (see Jeff Lindsay's fuller summary of the importance of Elephantine vis-a-vis Book of Mormon authenticity here). Furthermore, texts at Qumran show us that the Jews of this time allowed for altars and other erections to be constructed if one was three days outside of Jerusalem, again, consistent with the Book of Mormon (e.g., 11QT52:13-16).
On the issue of the New World practice of the Law of Moses amongst the Nephites, Brant Gardner offers the following insightful comments:
The law that Nephi inherited and implemented made no differentiation between civil and moral laws. The specific content of the law which Nephi was familiar is dependent upon how one accepts the historical development of the Old Testament . . . The exigencies of the new life could certainly lead to adaptations of the Old World model, but questions of leadership, worship, land management, and social organization would be based on the principles in the law of Moses. A rapid adaptation would have been applying the names of animals in the Old World law to New World fauna. For example, Exodus 22:1 says “If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” Neither oxen nor sheep were available in the New World, but the principle of restoration in an amount greater than the theft would still apply. Since there were five oxen to one ox, but only four sheep for one sheep, the New World would have to establish relative values for whatever animals would be involved in such reparations.
In spite of Nephi’s declaration that they followed the law of Moses, the Book of Mormon has relatively few clear examples of either civil or cultic practice related to that law . . . The Nephite law of egalitarianism appears to be based more directly on Isaiah than on the law of Moses (See commentary accompanying 2 Nephi 15:8.) (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007] 2:91-92)
With respect to Isa 5:8/2 Nephi 15:8 referenced above, Brant offers the following comments which have important ramifications for approaching the Nephite understanding of the Law of Moses vis-à-vis their New World setting:
2 Nephi 15:8
8 Wo unto them that join house to house, till there can be no place, that they may be placed along in the midst of the earth.
Isaiah is condemning the accumulation of real estate. Those who “join house to house” are consolidating their land-holdings into a single tract, in the process evicting those who previously lived on the land. The role owner is now along because he has eliminated everyone else. Ludlow explains the legal context:
This practice violates the spirit of the Law of the Jubilee, the property law of ancient Israel, which states that “the land shall not be sold forever” (Lev. 25:23). Instead, land was to remain within families and clans as a perpetual inheritance. (See 1 Kings 21, in which Neboth refuses to sell his ancestral lands to King Ahab.) The hoarding of land described in verse 8 was in violation of this law, for when all properly was purchased by a few wealthy individuals, there was no place for the original families to dwell. Having no homeland, they were forced to move to the cities or live on the property of the owner as indentured servants or slaves. (Victor L. Ludlow, Unlocking Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, p. 117)
This question was a pressing social issue in Isaiah’s time. According to Norman K. Gottwald, professor at the Pacific School of Religion, Berkely, California:
With Damascus and Assyrian both weakened in the first half of the eighth century, first Jehoash and then Jeroboam II were able to reign over a peaceful and increasingly prosperous Israel, while a period of similar accomplishment was enjoyed by Judah under Amaziah and Uzziah. Agriculture and trade flourished. From the Book of Amos we learn, however, that the prosperity and national confidence were experienced chiefly at the summit of the society whereas the majority of peasants were in dire straits. No doubt taxation and corvée played a role, but the particular focus of Amos is on the massive shift in land tenure from traditionally guaranteed family holdings to privately amassed estates taken over by debt foreclosures on impoverished farmers. In short, as in Solomon’s united kingdom, the “wonders” of eighth-century Israel were concentrated in a privileged class who rose to their advantages by the systematic deprivation and disempowerment of the peasant majority. (Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], 345-46).
Culture: Nephi quoted these Isaiah texts not only to stress their spiritual message but also to provide a social charter for his people. This passage articulates an ideal of economic egalitarianism for the Nephite community. Isaiah condemns the wealth derived through the acquisition of land that dispossesses other members of the community. Nephite society will attempt to establish Isaiah’s described economic ideal rather than the sharply hierarchal society he denounces.
Social egalitarianism versus economic stratification is one of the recurrent conflicts in Nephite history. While Nephi does not tell us that this is the reason for the text’s inclusion, the importance of the theme in the remainder of Nephite history highlights the fundamental nature of this people in Nephite society. Isaiah’ implicit endorsement of egalitarianism was therefore doubtless one reason Nephi included it in his record. It is also likely given the principle’s long-lasting importance, that Nephi also preached it and implemented it as a foundational social principle. (Ibid., 231-32)
Finally, on the issue of religious freedom, something that is noted as some as being an oddity in the Book of Mormon. On this issue, Brant notes the following:
The Nephite legal system did not attempt to restrict belief . . . [according to Alma 30:7-8] the law of the land had a scriptural basis. It is not clear whether the quotation from Joshua 24:15 was part of the Nephite codification of Law or Mormon’s interpretation . . . An interesting social problem is how to create law with a scriptural basis. The citation from Joshua is a prophet’s declaration that others had a right to choose, although Joshua was announcing a pragmatic, not legal, principle. Here, the pragmatic principle is expanded to a legal principle, both expanding and formalizing the scriptural episode. A single episode becomes an example and then a formal, legal model for social actions.
This method is by no means unusual. For instance, we find the following in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
[. . .] with silver [. . .] [. . .] and the year of [jubilee] shall arrive [. . .] [. . .] no one should abandon […] […] for it an abhorrent thing; and the verse that says [. . . “if you buy from] your neighbour, do not defraud him (Lev. 25:14). Now this is the meaning […] [. . . he must be frank about] all that he is aware of that is found [in whatever he is selling;] [if there is a fault in it] and he is aware of it, he is cheating him, whether it is human or animal. And if [. . .] to betroth, he shall tell him about all her defects, lest he bring upon himself the judgment of [the curse, which says, “Cursed] is he who leads the blind astray on the road” (Deut 27:18). Moreover, he should not give her to someone who is not proper for her, for this [is a case of “forbidden mixtures” . . . like plowing with] an ox and ass, or clothing made of wool and flax together. (4Q271 Frag. 1 Col )
This passage expands the meaning of Deuteronomy 27:18. This writer is basing regulations on statements from scripture but applying the scripture in new contexts for new laws, precisely the process at work in this Book of Mormon text. (Ibid., 4:406-7; square brackets added for clarification.)
When the facts are examined carefully, there is no real challenge to the historicity if the Book of Mormon and, in fact, much to support its claim to being a translation of a document from antiquity.
