Saturday, July 4, 2015

Helaman 7-9: Contest at Zarahemla--The Contest of Knowledge at the Hierocentric Center (Part One)

I  The Great Contest

Helaman Chapters 7-9 present the reader with a great contest of knowledge and of the ways of knowing. The vocabulary of knowing, detecting, finding, confessing, signifying, proving, testifying, witnessing, and acknowledging packs the short narrative. Even the repeated theme of secret combinations and corruption in high places sounds the theme: the prophets, drawing on their hidden sources of knowledge, will expose the members, deeds, and plans of the "secret band," for "There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light" (2 Nephi 30:17). The greatest knowledge of all is the prophetic witness of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to redeem His people.  

We might fashionably refer to such repeated words of knowing as Leitwoerter, words judiciously placed in the narrative to carry a theme, but in Helaman we don't so much see Leitwoerter, as we see the idea in every other word: the vocabulary of signification and knowing doesn't just move things along, it drenches the whole. In Chapter Five Helaman repeats the verb remember thirteen times in six verses. And that's not all he repeats: more than one "Leitwort" leads the way to Christ. No reader misses the repeated words and themes. The Book of Mormon is a very pointed book. (For Helaman 5, see Ronald D. Anderson, "Leitwoerter in Helaman and 3 Nephi," The Book of Mormon: Helaman through 3 Nephi).

The Book of Mormon teaches the same lesson about contested knowledge twice over. Robert A. Rees shows us a parallel to Helaman in 1 Nephi 16-17, not only in Leitwoerter, but also in the idea of a conflict or contest over ways of knowing ("Irony in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 12:2 (2003), 20-31). Rees titles the section on 1 Nephi, Nephi and His Elder Brothers: Knowledge versus False Knowledge. False knowledge includes boastful assertions, the famous boast that springs to mind being: "We knew that ye could not construct a ship" (1 Nephi 17:19). Rees also notes the thematic importance of a coming to acknowledgement: the brothers submit to Nephi's superior knowledge and power--and the ship is built: "Like earlier and later episodes of fraternal conflict in the book [of Nephi], this one is about power, but it is also about epistemology, about what one knows and doesn't know." And it is certainly about how one knows what one knows.

In a later generation another Nephi was counseled to remember ancestral Nephi and his works. Here is proof that Nephi listened! What a carefully constructed book we have in Helaman!  

Back to Helaman, then. Building on the dichotomy of False Assertion versus Correct Knowledge, in the contest of power, comes a second theme of the innocent accused and "the true murderer" or, "the very murderer." Combine this switcheroo with the hilariously mistaken proclamation about the (assumed) murderers, and you have a near map-cap mix-up. More on this later, but Americans who lap up the 24-hour news cycle will readily get the point.

A first draft of this essay on knowledge in Helaman 7-9 was written 25 years ago, when I was reading Robert Alter and thinking about clues and traces and literary devices. Yet the Book of Mormon comes with a special plainness and urgency--we may catch at the echoes, but nobody ever misses the point. Let's not miss the point. And Helaman is anything but opaque: Readers by the tens and even hundreds of thousands--"yea, more"--have noted Helaman's repetitive use of the words knowledge, know, power, powerful, sign, evidences, testify, and witness. 

The contest in Helaman 7-9 thus pointedly recalls that of Elijah and Ba'al, primarily because Helaman consistently portrays Nephi as an Elijah figure. Building on 1 Kings' portrayal of Elijah as a type of Moses, Helaman also portrays Nephi as a type of both great prophets. If God gave such great power to this man, Moses, why can He not also give power to me? So Nephi argues. Prophets like Moses and Elijah, Mordechai Cogan tells us, only show up at crucial junctures. Like Elijah, Nephi pits himself against the power structure at a moment of national crisis. All plays out as a zero-sum game, with the prophet's life--as the state itself--in the balance. (For Moses, see "Nephi Son of Helaman: A Prophet Like Moses," Ether's Cave. A Place for Book of Mormon Research; Mordechai Cogan, Anchor Bible, 1 Kings.

Elijah's power consists in bringing the priests of Ba'al to a recognition of their folly; he wins the game, in the name of God, by means of a sign: fire from heaven. He wins; then flees for his life. Nephi wins the game by giving signs which confirm professed--and startling--knowledge from heaven about conspiratorial deeds on earth. And the knowledge-signs come as powerfully as the fire.

Though traced throughout the footnotes, I have but recently noticed the many specific points of comparison between Nephi and Elijah; a contest of knowledge purposely reflecting Elijah at Carmel also just dawned on me, though it had occurred to other readers--perhaps to most. Bryan Richards (gospeldoctrine.com) writes: "Another example of this sort of dramatic demonstration of God's power, happened between Elijah and the priests of Baal," famously "a contest of God's power." By "dramatic demonstration," Brother Richards primarily references Nephi's demonstration of signs, but if the episode on Mount Carmel was a contest, so perforce, mutatis mutandis, was that of Nephi and the judges. The judges nicely parallel the priests of Baal, though it is apostate governance not pagan cult we find here. Helaman speaks to our own circumstances. Besides, where you have judges calling for trials and conducting interrogations, interspersed with dramatic speech-making: there is contest (see Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture). The contest on Mount Carmel ends a blistering famine; in Helaman famine follows the contest at Zarahemla. Here is no accident; for in both narratives these two episodes "are not independent of one another but are intimately entwined," Coogan, 1 Kings, 446.


II  Setting the Stage

Zarahemla on market day, drenched in color, bustling with energy, is City as Festival.

Hugh Nibley notes how the events described in Helaman 7-9--which also describe a great circle--unfold at hierocentric points to which the assembled multitudes come as if magnetically drawn: 1) the tower and garden of Nephi by the capital's main highway and chief market and 2) the place of the judgment-seat (Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3; "The Hierocentric State," in The Ancient State, 99-147). The scenario recalls the annual year-rite, a drama which may be recast on selected days throughout the year, "Hierocentric State," 111. Indeed, according to Nephi's own description, Zarahemla herself sits at the geographic center of the state, as if surrounded by so many satellites: "this great city, and also all those great cities which are round about" (7:22). The multitudes, as if awaiting the summons, are called by special runners and proclamations. Nobody except Seantum seems to be at home. 

So "all Israel" was summoned to Mount Carmel for the Contest of the Age (1 Kings 18).

Such hierocentric gatherings feature the great yearly contests. And the reader duly notes the high energy of these chapters with their repeated action of running, fleeing, seizing, falling, and liberation. And killing--"The purpose of such games," says Hugh Nibley, "was to make a human sacrifice." Helaman 7-9 only mirrors the opening chapter of the book, which, at once, describes the contest for the governorship "in the commencement of the fortieth year" (Helaman 1:1) and the swiftly unfolding death of the three contestants. Paanchi was "taken," "tried," "and condemned unto death" (1:8); Kishkumen "murdered Pahoran as he sat upon the judgment-seat. And he was pursued by the servants of Pahoran; but behold, so speedy was the flight of Kishkumen that no man could overtake him" (1:9-10); "Pacumeni, who was the chief judge, did flee before Coriantumr ["a large and a mighty man," noted for his "exceedingly great speed"], even to the walls of the city. And it came to pass that Coriantumr did smite him against the wall, insomuch that he died" (1:21). Pacumeni won the race to the wall--and lost the chase. The running "so speedy" is perforce a race: the five who run to the place of judgment in Helaman 9, wish to be the first to know whether the governor has indeed been killed. Even more importantly, they wish to "know of a surety" whether portent-bearing Nephi is a true prophet of God. Where does the reader draw the line between ritual and history? Helaman's runners are certainly not described as festival runners; the five "did run in their might" in a moment of intensity, even panic: Zarahemla's race is run. (For the sacrificial purpose of the ritual game, see Hugh Nibley on the game at the Waters of Sebus, "The Book of Mormon: Forty Years After," The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 541.)


Noteworthy, too, is the divided crowd (at both Nephi's garden tower and at the place of judgment), something recalling an antiphonal chorus or a class and political division into partes. We recall "that part of the people" who backed Paanchi and sent Kishkumen (Helaman 1:7). We also find the idea of substitutes in a moment where topsy-turvy chaos runs the show: untrue proclamations, mistaken identity, "garb[s] of secrecy," false accusations, false imprisonments. 

Like a storm wind suddenly still, the multitudes, divided, exit, "leaving Nephi alone, as he was standing in the midst of them" (10:1), even as he once prayed alone, before standing in his tower above them. His utter aloneness at beginning and at end, bright morning and gathering dusk, both frames and heightens the tension of the crowded moment. 

Helaman astonishes! Why would a purportedly historical narrative come chock full with the telltale signs of panegyris, of combat and of contest? Can history and ritual collapse into one tale? We turn again to Brother Nibley for an answer: Remember, he says, Nephite culture is "a sacral culture." And as Mircea Eliade also reminds us, the sacral view escapes the modern, secular mind. In reading Helaman we play the detective as we watch for "literary qualities," even "language usages and cultural traits as distinctive as fingerprints," Hugh Nibley, "Forty Years After," 535; Nibley, here, also cites Erik Hornung.

Ironic Helaman does not mean to say that Nephi enters Zarahemla during New Year's celebrations; it's the echo that counts. Helaman does speak patriotically of the "land of his [Nephi's] nativity," and Nephi at prayer paints an idealized, and famously ironic, picture of the time when ancestral Nephi "joyed in" his "land of promise." Nephi then launches into a panegyric about Israelite history, "our fathers," tracing the story back to Moses victory over the Red Sea, and even to Abraham and beyond--"many thousands of years." He then sets forth the principles of good and bad governance, giving embarrassing examples of the latter. The Tower discourse thus takes on the character of an official state event--though perhaps in antithesis. 

Helaman's glimpse of Zarahemla is not so much about calendar as it is about color. Zarahemla, in a sentimental moment, unfolds to view as a colorful, ever festive cityscape recalling both Mexico-Tenochtitlan with her towers, canals, floating gardens, quadrants, thoroughfares, plazas, and markets, and the tropically painted pyramids of archaic El Mirador. (Nibley makes much of this distinctively American likeness.) We enter a hustling, bustling capital on an active market day, and it could be any day, just a couple of hours before Noon, when the foot traffic to market is starting to slow. Indeed it is Everyday. In Egypt we have History as Celebration; Ancient America yields City as Festival, the City at Play, or, as cast in the City Dionysia, tragedy pending. As cultural center, Zarahemla, the Red City, lends herself to imagery-laden portrayals as the idealized festival, Zarahemla as permanent panegyris. (For Egypt, see Erik Hornung, Idea into Image; for Mexico City, Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, vol. 3:256.)

Morning in Zarahemla is Everyday. Yet timing is everything. And Hugh Nibley shows that Nephi's two prophetic signs are a matter of perfect timing--because, after all, a chief judge in such an unstable atmosphere might be killed at Any Time. "Ripeness is all." And taking the tide at its flood, Nephi powerfully presents a Sign and an end of times scenario, the close of the Great Year of Zarahemla in Festival. Nephi, once chief judge, has delivered the divine verdict: Zarahemla rings in its Day of Judgment.

John W. Welch is thus delicately correct when he describes Nephi on the Tower as "conducting a recognizable mock mourning or funeral ceremony," "a prophetic allegory" as "funeral sermon," 239-240. The "agony" Nephi felt was real beyond all enduring: and the expression of that pain found spontaneous expression. Yet, again, timing is everything. Whether Nephi was lamenting by plan--he was not--matters not at all. After all, Welch notes, the hand of death has just struck and "the great Chief Judge" is dead. Within moments all will eerily join in Nephi's cry of murder and lamentation (John W. Welch, "Was Helaman 7-8 an Allegorical Funeral Sermon," Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 239-241). Here is prophetic fore-shadowing indeed.

The death of the "governor of all the land" (Alma 30:29) marks the beginning of a general mourning, fasting, and lamentation, the introduction of chaos into the bright festive dawn. The moment of death indeed marks a disruptive juncture in the times and seasons. Does the universal Great Year-Rite mark the moment of demise or coronation? Is it Osiris or Horus? All is one. More significantly, what we see in the murder of Seezoram is the killing of the false ruler, the pretender, the Seth. And before long the mourning populace will be forced to so acknowledge. He sat in judgment as the "great man" or "great chief judge," but now lies beside the judgment-seat as the fraud exposed, a man in disguise, even in the "garb of secrecy," as a member of Gadianton's secret society. Just so, the hero Teancum, a generation earlier, slew the deceptive, murderous, and false king, Amalikiah, moments before dawn on New Years' Day (Alma 50; cf. Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 209). (And Amalikiah's name reminds us who the True King is.) In the Year-Rite the substitute ruler, the pretender, must die, and Helaman 7-8 does follow the ceremonial pattern of a mock lament for a mock king in a doomed city. 



III  Contest at Zarahemla

The stage now set, Contest at Zarahemla casts two competing professions and portrays two different professions to knowledge: the "secret combination," or Gadiantons, with its insider knowledge and secret signs versus the prophetic gift. In 2 Kings we observe two competing cults or priesthoods or prophets: Israel and Baal; Elijah and Ahab--and Jezebel. In Helaman we see the elite knowers, who solidly rely on "what everyone knows" and on preparation and education and culture suited to their social class; they also are in on the secret vouchsafed to members only. What does Nephi bring to the contest? He himself, as his father and great-grandfather before him, once governed the state, and his name also mirrors that of the founder and first king of the Nephite people. And like his fathers, Nephi is a prophet. In Nephi, then, we see an entire tradition of just governance in a sacral society contesting governance by a rich, well-educated, elite class of what Helaman bluntly labels robbers and usurpers (Helaman 7).

Nephi's hidden knowledge, known only through revelation and manifest solely through preaching and signs contrasts with a false knowledge, a way of knowing best seen as, at once, patriotic boasting and elitist condescension: a boasted, almost professorial, knowledge. The boasting elites attempt to cow Nephi by asserting: We know absolutely the following things--don't be ridiculous! When Nephi prophesies the loss of cities to the enemy, the judges counter with Laman-like boasting: "And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us" (Helaman 8:6). Such emphasis on power and the impossible must mask uncertainty, and Nephi, in full view of the crowds, unmasks the phony pretentions of security and power.

As Nephi prays and laments from a garden-tower, situated in the wealthy central district, startled citizens on their way to the chief market "ran and told"; crowds gather in astonishment. Why should crowds gather? As in the Orient, the market likely "was the one place where the people could legally gather in large numbers," as well as being "the privileged site for the communication of messages from the rulers to the people." It was also a place for the "public spectacles" associated with fine clothing, wealth, and power. And the wealthy would have lived on the "chief thoroughfares" near the market, as Nephi's own neighbors (Mark Edward Lewis, The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han, 80, 84). The market crowds would also have been a barometer for the fluctuating moods of the people--a sort of jittery stock market--and, as we see from those who joined in Nephi's critiques, "not completely under the government's control," 84.

As Hugh Nibley points out, uncertainty grips Nephite society, and the anxious people long for a way out. Nephi opens with an ironic and telling question, a single question that captures both the state of emergency in which the people unwittingly find themselves, and the disaster at hand: "Why have ye gathered yourselves together?" As already set forth, for the Nephites "to gather themselves together" before a tower clearly is a customary act belonging to festive, official, and patriotic occasions, and it reveals the constant need of the people for self-congratulatory reassurances of supremacy. Nephi appends a sarcastic follow-up to that "Why?": "Have ye gathered yourselves together that I may tell you of your iniquities?" So are they caught--by their own curiosity and their own choice; for they came unbidden. As Nephi turns to denunciation and threat, members of the power elite, in knee-jerk response, accuse him of treasonous talk and demand that he be silenced. Nephi, after all, is busy describing to the crowd the secret doings of the corrupt elite, who perforce respond in anger and ridicule, and, asserting their superior knowledge, attempt to silence him by counter-accusation and by sarcasm and logic.

He responds with a first sign: the assassination of the governor.

Five men run to the place of judgment to find out. They disbelieve Nephi's tale but soon find all to be true and fall to the earth in fear. 

Meanwhile, just before the arrival of the five, the governor's servants, discovering the murder, "ran and told" the city crowds, "raising the cry of murder." The telling phrase ran and told thus describes a racing circuit, and as literary sign, an inclusio, or ring pattern, framing the drama. 

Crowds surge about the place of judgment (another place where crowds are legally wont to assemble), which looms in the likeness of Nephi's judgment tower, and promptly seize the five fallen as the assassins. They assert that God has smitten the five for the crime and broadcast a proclamation.

A great ceremony of mourning unfolds on the next day, even as the elitist judges from the market road show up for the burial and identify the five runners as their own messengers. These same judges now accuse Nephi as "confederate" in the assassination, declare that they know his guilt with certainty, and begin to interrogate him to discover the governor's "true murderer." They are working very hard here, as they play the game of bribery and of entrapment with "divers questions." 

Nephi responds with a second sign: Go and interrogate Seantum, the brother of the judge and he say respond with the words I now give you. Then you will come to a knowledge of the true murderer, my innocence, and ultimately, of my prophetic call. You will then be compelled to acknowledge my superior knowledge and power.

Surprisingly, they respond--but remember the drama unfolds as a contest. So they play the game, and to every one's astonishment, Nephi's sign reveals his superior knowledge. The power elites, including culpable Seantum himself, are forced to acknowledge that Nephi has prevailed. 

But even this is only a first and begrudging acknowledgement. Nephi, like Elijah, escapes, it is true, but the powers that be yet are. As with Elijah and Elisha, the uncompromising contest of power must continue through seasons of sword and through seasons of famine, until the "the people began to plead with their chief judges and their leaders, that they would say unto Nephi: Behold, we know that thou art a man of God, and therefore cry unto the Lord our God that he turn away from us this famine, lest all the words which thou hast spoken concerning our destruction be fulfilled. And it came to pass that the judges did say unto Nephi, according to the words which had been desired (Helaman 11:8-9; 18).






NOTES 

See Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 387-388, and John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon. Welch ably analyzes the trial of Nephi and the confession of Seantum in light of Ancient Israelite and later Jewish law. I do not find the legal analysis airtight, but it prompts discussion. Readers may also wish to consider Joseph Spencer's "Reflections on Helaman 9" (feastupontheword.org), another discussion starter, as part of an on-going workshop of "close readings" of the Book of Mormon. Such "reflections" help show just how "reflective" and "self-reflective" the books of Mormon truly are. Hugh Nibley felt the Book of Mormon to run deeper even than Shakespeare: We should not be surprised at finding traces and echoes on every side. 




















Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Joseph Smith Translation Ezekiel 20:30

I

The Prophet Joseph Smith changed but ten verses in the Book of Ezekiel. None of the changes, except that made to the very last verse in the book, touch upon any of Ezekiel's better known or more challenging places. For instance, Why would the Prophet skip the enigmatic visions of the opening chapters to bother with Ezekiel 20:30? And why that particular verse in Chapter 20, and no other?

The change is a small one--he shifts the interrogative mode to the indicative in the first two opening clauses of the sentence--and the preponderance of Bible translations do not support it. No matter. Joseph Smith finds himself in the best of company: St. Jerome (and thus Wycliffe), Luther, and the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh.

We start with the Authorized Version and then consider the Joseph Smith Translation:


30 Wherefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers? and commit ye whoredom after their abominations?

31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not be inquired of by you.


Joseph Smith recasts the two opening rhetorical questions as flat indictments:


Ye are polluted after the manner of your fathers and ye commit whoredom after their abominations.

Faulring, Jackson, Matthews (eds), Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (2004)

The change startles because it suggests an error in the original Hebrew. But several other translators, and let's now add Breuer, Zitterli, and Greenberg to the company, sensitive to the nuances of grammar and of rhetoric, translate in the same way that Brother Joseph does--and no emendation of the Hebrew.

The question that lies at the heart of the complicated sentence is "And will I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel?" All prior clauses, says Rabbi Solomon Fisch, become antecedents going before judgment: "This verse and the first half of the next verse are antecedents to the clause shall I then be inquired of by you?" (S. Fisch, Soncino Bible: Ezekiel, 127). We recall how the elders of the people approached Ezekiel and requested an oracle. The delegation approaches Ezekiel because they know he's the real thing; Israel enjoys the prophetic gifts--and they know it. Yet their hearts simultaneously burst with the plea: Why can't we be just like everyone else (see v. 33)? Israel wants Jerusalem and Idumea all in one breath, and the Divine rebuke of such duplicity is a rhetorical marvel that cuts to the heart.

Rhetorical marvel? There are places in the Hebrew Bible, Gesenius' Grammar tell us, "in which the use of the interrogative is altogether different from our idiom, since it serves merely to express the conviction that the contents of the statement are well known to the hearer, and are unconditionally admitted by him" (Gesenius, Kautzsch, Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 473). Such usage therefore supplies us with a rhetoric well suited to Divine decree or decisions at law. Gesenius illustrates the principle with a few one liners. To get to the root of the matter in Ezekiel 20:30-31, we must dig deeper. 

"A widespread phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew," says Christian Stadel, "is the use of an interrogative clause for the expression of an assertion. Such interrogatives are commonly known as 'rhetorical questions'" (Christian Stadel, "Interrogative: Biblical Hebrew," in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics 2:306-316; 309). Rhetorical questions here labels a technical term Hebraists use to describe a very particular kind of declarative idiom. As is the case with other non-pronominal interrogatives, rhetorical questions begin with a "sentence-initial particle," the clitic-h

Such a rhetorical device, especially in a sentence consisting of two or more clauses, serves "to express a premise or a conclusion in a logical argument. When expressing a premise, the rhetorical question establishes a consensus, or common ground between the speaker and addressee, which is then used to advance the argument;" rhetorical questions thus "have a strengthening function, expressing the implied assertion in a more forceful way then a simple declarative would have done," ibid., 310. 

Usage suggests a clitic-h preceding each rhetorical question in the succession of clauses (or independent sentences). In Ezekiel 20:30-31 only the first clause shows the particle: hbdrk (ha + prep. b "in" + derek "way"). Had Ezekiel intended a series of independent rhetorical questions, he likely would have put the particle at the head of each of them. And would not such stand-alone questions--each to be paused over, as it enters the stage in logical and brilliant arrangement--have made for a stronger declaration? Surely so--yet perhaps not: in Ezekiel 20:30-31 the antecedents fly swiftly on to the final judgment that rings down the curtain on the play.

As we now consider the following translations of Ezekiel 20:30-31, the question to ask is: Which, if any of them, best captures the complicated sentence structure and its sweeping rhetorical force?

It might be best to start with a plain reading (my own), along with simple notes about semantics and grammar:


Therefore say to House of Israel: 

So says my Lord Jehovah--

Ha-in the way of your fathers you make yourselves tameh;
after their shiqqutzim you play the faithless wife;
and in lifting your gifts (to heaven, at the altar),
in making your sons to pass through in the fire, 
you make yourselves tameh in dedicated service to all your ridiculous idols until today:

And I shall be sought of by you for an oracle, House of Israel?

Live I--statement of my Lord Jehovah--
if I shall be sought of by you for an oracle!


The initial interrogative marker is the sole such marker in the sentence; the final question is only implied. And note how the third and fourth clauses show the preposition be (in, in acting), not ke (when, as). To "be sought of by you" (with preposition le, for) signifies to be sought of for a revelation. Tameh signifies to "become (cultically) unclean: it is for the once faithful bride to play the prostitute by following after the detestable (cultic) practices and silly idols of Canaan (William L. Holliday, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). 

What it all means is beyond us, though the lexicographers' insistence on cultic pollution can miss the point: by adopting cultic practices, Israel perforce adopts all cultural practices as well. The first thus nicely serves as metaphor for the second. One wonders whether the verb for crossing ('br), in "passing through the fire," is intended to stir the memory of another crossing, the ancestral crossing which qualified Abraham an 'ever (Hebrew)? By causing their own sons to cross through fire--whatever that meant literally or symbolically to Ezekiel--do these faithless sons of Abraham reverse the pilgrimage of Father Abraham and unmake his sons Hebrews? Do Ezekiel's auditors maintain, or do they break, the generational chain of covenant?

As Ezekiel's contemporary, Nephi, says, "the manner of prophesying among the Jews" can be "hard to understand" without careful instruction. It is enough to know, he says with a shudder, that "their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations" (2 Nephi 25: 1-2). Given that works and doings signal technical terminology for cultic activity, Nephi's careful choice of words show how tellingly cultic works and doings reflect the general societal and cultural darkness.


The Soncino Bible: Ezekiel (Rabbi Solomon Fisch)

Wherefore say unto the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord God:
When ye pollute yourselves after the manner of your fathers, and go astray after their abomination, and when, in offering your gifts, in making your son to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, unto this day; shall I then be inquired of by you?


JPS Tanakh 1917 (see Bible Hub.com

Wherefore say unto the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord GOD: When ye pollute yourselves after the manner of your fathers, and go after their abominations, and when, in offering your gifts, in making your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, unto this day; shall I then be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you;"



Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, The Book of Yechezkel, 172 


Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer likewise translates the rhetorical questions in the opening clauses as positive indictments, though also he nods to the interrogative particle, ha, which opens the sentence:

Therefore say to the House of Israel: Thus has my Lord spoken, God, Who envelops His loving kindness in justice: What? You defile yourselves upon the path your fathers trod, and you are faithless in that you seek after their horrors; And by lifting up your offerings, leading your children through the fire, defiling yourselves through your idolatries to this day--and I should let Myself be sought of you, house of Israel?"

Rav Breuer, as truthful translator, does well to remind us how God, though everlastingly loving, cannot "rob justice": "God, Who envelops His loving kindness in justice" (see Alma 42:25: "What, can ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?")


The Douay-Rheims translation (as does Wycliffe) attests the Vulgate of St. Jerome:

Wherefore say to the house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord God: Verily [certe], you are defiled in the way of your fathers, and you commit fornication with their abominations. And you defile yourselves with all your idols unto this day, in the offering of your gifts, when you make your children pass through the fire: and shall I answer you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not answer you.


Moshe Greenberg, The Anchor Bible: Ezekiel, 362

Say, then, to the house of Israel: Thus said Lord YHWH: You defile yourselves in the manner of your fathers, you go whoring after their loathsome things; you defile yourselves by the offer of your gifts and by delivering up your sons to the fire--your idolatries of all sorts--to this day; shall I then respond to your inquiry, house of Israel? By my life, declared Lord YHWH, I will not respond to your inquiry!


Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24, I: 402

Thus has [the Lord] Yahweh said: You are making yourselves unclean with the behavior of your fathers. In following their abominations you are committing their immorality. And in offering your gifts [in making your sons pass through the fire] you are making yourselves unclean for all your idols right up to the present day. Shall I then let myself be questioned by you, house of Israel? As I live, says [the Lord] Yahweh, I will not let myself be questioned by you."


Of these, I favor the translations of Rav Joseph Breuer and the JPS Tanakh. The JPS Tanakh insists on an artificial and impeding when-then construction for the sentence, with non-finite when clauses, but the translation yet delivers a powerful rhetorical punch. (We can now see how turning opening clauses into interrogatives, breaking one sentence into several, would slow things to an unbearable pace.) Rav Breuer may add poetic refrains to the text and drop the familiar English technical ritual expression to inquire of in favor of a literal reading of the Hebrew drsh (seek); he nevertheless conveys--and clearly--in a single sweeping sentence, something of the rough, near staccato oracular idiom of a desert tribe. And are these various readings not rhetorically superior to the clumsy literalism, if that, of the Authorized Version?




II

One may ask: Do you propose to show the inspiration of Joseph Smith, when you claim his translation has such substantial support?

I take that inspiration as a given. To range at will through the pages of scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph is to see "all things appear divinely new." One need not be a partisan nor a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to see the "marvelous work and a wonder" that is the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the New Translation of the Holy Bible, and the Pearl of Great Price. Neither does the Divine Treasury of Restoration Scripture remain the exclusive property of Latter-day Saints--it belongs to you and it belongs to me, for it rightfully belongs to God.

Joseph Smith belongs to the world. Then let the world consider him, read him, write of him and ponder, debate, and sort out his revelations and translations and papers how and when and where it wishes. As for Latter-day Saints, we need to stop popping out of our seats anytime someone belonging to another faith or another community writes a thoughtful essay or book about Brother Joseph's prophetic and scriptural contribution. 

Joseph Smith deserves more of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ than a knee-jerk reaction. Nor need we tend him or his message, as if some fragile thing.

Sometimes we "pop" in wild-eyed naivete; other times we "pop" in haste to criticize or to discredit. We can promote truth, correct misinformation and obvious error, and even and ever defend the Prophet's good name, but we should also let others think, write, "call on the Lord, and ponder. . .in their hearts. . . for a little season." In other words, we can afford others the room to breathe and to discover the good news of the Restoration for themselves in their own way and in their own time. Such allowance to others, at least "for a little season," becomes another special way, among so many other marvelous ways, by which the divine promise comes to fruition: "I will hasten my work in its time" (Doctrine and Covenants 88: 71-73).



III

Speaking solely for myself, I wonder whether the best question to ask about JST Ezekiel 20:30 would be Why did the Prophet Joseph choose to turn our attention at all to Ezekiel Chapter 20? 

The subject of divine indictment is not a pleasant one. Haunting is the Lord's refusal by the mouth of Ezekiel to the hapless elders of the people: And will I be inquired of by you? Ezekiel 20, with its long and careful recital of covenants broken and opportunities lost, as generation succeeds generation throughout the entire course of Israel's history, makes up one of the most stunning moments in all scripture: 

Here we are, O Lord. 

No, I will not hear you. Look over the record of your past. The day of your probation has ended.

To avoid the tragic outcome of losing the privileges of revelation, and the nurturing daily guidance and comfort flowing therefrom, we should compare ourselves with the people whom Ezekiel served. In refusing to show His divine favor, the Lord indicts the people for polluting both themselves and even their hapless children. Did they not love their own children sufficiently to teach them the ways of righteousness, freedom, and happiness? "Such 'pollution,'" Rabbi Fisch teaches us, "creates a barrier between them and God which makes impossible the achievement of their desire, viz. enlightenment from Him on what the immediate future holds in store," 128. For instance, to "greatly pollute" God's sabbaths not only bars enlightenment, it even prevents the holy offering of the sign of the covenant, the bond of fellowship between God and His people. 

We might ask ourselves, turning the indictment back into a question: Are we polluting ourselves after the manner of the world? Is that the road (derekh) we walk? Do pollutions, idols, and abominations "create a barrier" between us and God? And how is it with the rising generation? Are their feet set on a proven course? or, bearing no moral compass to guide, do they pass through the fire of untested, untried, and strange roads--roads of anger, roads of hatred, roads of sloth and self-indulgence, branching tri-vial roads, roads of immorality? In fine, are we sufficiently clean and pure to inquire of the Lord, to offer up the sign of the covenant, that is, "offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day," or to hear the words of his living prophet, Thomas S. Monson? (See Doctrine and Covenants 59:9).

What Ezekiel was not permitted to say to his insincere inquirers, his oracular contemporary, Jacob, was commanded to reveal to a straying, though yet more righteous branch of Israel. His message (2 Nephi 9) might have once brought hope, enlightenment, and deliverance to the elders of Israel. It can still cleanse us today--making us "clean thereby."

Significantly, the closing talk of the last General Conference of the Church also refers to Ezekiel Chapter 20. Elder Russell M. Nelson cites Ezekiel's teaching of an eternal covenant between God and His people to hallow the Sabbath Day (20:12, 20). As we keep the Sabbath, we may "more fully keep" ourselves as well, including keeping ourselves and our families "unspotted from the [pollutions of] the world" (Doctrine and Covenants 59:9). God is, thankfully, not slow to hear our prayers. Here is counsel from a living apostle for you and for me ("The Sabbath is a Delight," Conference Report, April 2015). 

Ezekiel Chapter 20 suddenly takes on relevance and urgency.







Saturday, June 20, 2015

Joseph Smith Translation Ezekiel 19:10: The Living Prophet Renews Scripture

The Prophet Joseph Smith changed many verses in Isaiah and Jeremiah; Ezekiel received a light touch. He pronounces Ezekiel's first 13 chapters "all correct." Starting with Chapter 14, he, here and there, updates the usage (sith becomes since; that that becomes that which; turn yourselves and live ye is now turn ye and live); he even attends to what appears to be a typo in his Bible (Arvan should be Arvad). (JST Ezekiel 35:6; 36:36; 18:32; 27:11)

See Faulring, Jackson, Matthews (eds.), Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts.

Of the ten changes to Ezekiel, only six stand out as being, in any way, substantial. By substantial, I mean a change in the English of such a nature that we can ask a) whether the received Hebrew text may be in error or incomplete or b) whether the meaning of the Hebrew text has been long misunderstood and, perforce, also lost in translation. Because changes in Ezekiel 23:17, 22, and 28 apparently serve to iron out such a misunderstanding of a presumably correct underlying Hebrew idiom and text, we are left with but five small changes to a book of 48 chapters. Of these, then, a mere four require a reexamination of the Masoretic text. Yet while one of the four suggests that a rhetorical question should be recast in the indicative: Ye are . . . and ye commit (20:30), the shift does not require adjustment in the original Hebrew. Indeed some translators, sensitive to the complicated sentence structure and the intent of the Hebrew, also recast the "question" as accusation. Because these few make for good company: St. Jerome, Luther, Wycliffe, and the JPS Tanakh, Ezekiel 20:30 is a bull's-eye for Joseph Smith. Three remain.

So what prompted the prophetic mind to zoom in on a particular verse?


I

Consider Ezekiel 19:10, where a very strange phrase is crossed out:

Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.

Like a vine in thy blood--that's about as faithful to the Hebrew as it's possible to get, and just about as odd an idiom as can be.

Entire chapters of Ezekiel jar modern sensibilities and baffle understanding, so why this verse? Was Joseph Smith merely searching, now and again, for a bit of clarity in a scroll of obscurity?

We picture Joseph and his associates reading Ezekiel aloud chapter by chapter, marking changes along the way. Did he read aloud the first fourteen chapters and then state "all correct?" Or did he so pronounce, without the need of reading? We can imagine the furrowing of the brow when 19:10 was read, but, if we study changes elsewhere made in the Biblical text, there were several choices available to him. He might choose to ignore the strange reading, add to the text so as to clarify meaning, rearrange words or even sentences in a meaningful way, or consider the marginal notes found in his own Bible. The Prophet solves the difficulty by simply deleting the phrase--a single word in Hebrew: bdmk--"in thy blood." Was he so prompted? Latter-day Saints believe he translated under the spirit of inspiration.

The Joseph Smith Translation of Ezekiel 19:10 accordingly reads:

The mother is like a vine planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.

Who is to say the change is insignificant? According to Professor Zimmerli, the prophecy embraces the destiny of the "entire Davidic royal house" of whom the "mother" is symbolic (Walther Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 1-24, 397).


II

We start where all students must, with text critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, e.g., the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and the Hebrew University Bible.

Two Hebrew manuscripts show, not bdmk (in your blood), but krmk (in your kerem, an orchard or vineyard). To understand the underlying scribal tradition for these manuscripts, we must recall how b/k and d/r make up two pair of consonantal confusables. A little adjustment to the bifocals, and you could see "like a vine in your kerem"--just where a vine ought to be.

These textual apparatus now take up the Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the Bible into Greek.

The Septuagint, however, yields no orchard but a single vine and a single tree: hos ampelos kai hos anthos en hroa (like a vine and like a flower on a pomegranate tree). Did an "original" Hebrew be-rimmon prompt the Greek translation of en hroaon a pomegranate? (See notes in Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel.) Or might the notionality of blood have been confused with the redness of the pomegranate flower?

The BHS further suggests the possible emendation bakerem (in the vineyard). What about "your"?


We turn now to the Great Rabbinic Bible, Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel, and other commentators. The popular Soncino Bible, for instance, follows the rabbinic interpretation:

Thy mother was like a vine, in thy likeness, planted by the waters
Rabbi Solomon Fisch, Ezekiel.

Why "in thy likeness"? Because the Hebrew verb damah (to be like, resemble; n., dimyon, dmy, likeness) much resembles dam (blood). Yet "in thy likeness" but poorly echoes the Hebrew construction and nuance. Rav Joseph Breuer tells us the particular verbal form represented by bdmk is a qal infinitive (a verbal noun), dmyt, with preposition, be. He translates: "But your mother was (also) like a vine--you were like (it)" (Breuer, The Book of Yechezkel, 159).

And how can a vine be in thy likeness, when thy mother is also like that vine? It's a matter of likeness, of riddling, of bloodline--and of Hebrew poetry packing it in.

Jacob 5, quoting an ancient Hebrew prophet, evinces comparably dense doubling: "I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard" (5:3; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 88:61: "Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms"). It's all here: to liken thee like unto; the tame olive-tree ("in thy quietness" for "in thy blood," Heb. dami, quiet, rest); took and nourished (Eichrodt: "transplanted by the water").

Yet Rabbi Fisch also notes that "in thy blood" suggests in "thy natural vigour," the vigor of both vine and bloodline; as far as that goes, bkrm would place the vine in its "natural setting." Marginal notes in Brother Joseph's own Bible prompted: "or, in thy quietness, or, in thy likeness." And divines of the day held to the reading "in thy blood" or "in thy quietness" and interpreted accordingly, creatively, and variously (cf. the examples found in the online Bible Hub, including KJV Translator's Notes).

Addressing "the puzzle of bdmk," Moshe Greenberg concludes: "The word remains a crux," (Ezekiel 1-20, The Anchor Bible, v. 22, 1983), 353.


Walther Eichrodt, as does BHS, prefers emending the text to bkrm, which could signify either bakerem or bekerem (in the vineyard or in a vineyard):

"Your mother was like a vine [in a vineyard], transplanted by the water."

Eichrodt yet concludes of bkrm: "A completely uncertain emendation of the unintelligible 'in your blood,' in the text," Ezekiel: A Commentary, 250 note J.

The toy parade of the scholars marches true to form:

"The reading of MS ken 356 krmk, which is graphically close, creates difficulties due to its suffix. Toy, Holscher, Hesekiel, Bertholet, Fohrer would read kbrm [how richly ironic: a typo in Zimmerli for bkrm!], whilst Cornill, Ehrlich, Randglossen, following MS ken 399, 421, would simply delete bkrm," Walther Zimmerli, A Commentary on Ezekiel, 397.

I poke fun at the scholars, but their words and their ways remain

Things beyond my ken. Before we can get in step with Cornill, Ehrlich, Fohrer, Toy, we're going to have to track down ken 356, 399, 421, we're going to have to tilt at Kennicott's Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus. . . How easy it would be at this juncture to shrug shoulders and to say: We have Joseph Smith's translation of the verse, why bother with the manuscripts?

Zimmerli never yields the game. His own tentative conclusion? "Masoretic 'in thy blood' is certainly not original." "Already Rashi and Kimhi favor a derivation from dmh [to be like], which is probable," but only after further adjustments: "Should we then read a participle ndmh or a perfect ndmth, which has been written incorrectly as in [Ezekiel] 27:32?" (Zimmerli, 390).

Without Zimmerli's "probable," "unintelligible" and "certainly not original" would remain the latest words on the "puzzle of bdmk." After Zimmerli's emendations we arrive at: "Thy mother is like a vine ndmh planted by the waters," which signifies "Thy mother like a vine (who) is likened (being made like unto, comparable) planted by the waters." I marvel at the poetic complexity of the thing--but how to translate into plain English? Zimmerli's adoption and adaptation of the rabbinic reading only brings us back to Joseph Smith:


Thy mother is likened to a vine planted by the waters,

or simply,

Thy mother is like a vine planted by the waters.

I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree.


Given such a baffling word in an otherwise clear text, and chary of erudition, some modern translators simply ignore bdmk. Scribes might have lost sight of some infinitive or participle attached to the mother-vine long ago; yet we lose nothing in our understanding of the poem thereby.



III

Some lessons may be drawn from such prophetic correction--or cancellation. (And I'm speaking solely for myself, and to myself, here.)

We learn a vital lesson about prophetic authority and guidance: the living prophet, who holds the keys of the kingdom, can change scripture. He can add, expand, delete, and interpret as a living oracle, a living fountain of Scripture. The Prophet may even authoritatively modify, as did Joseph Smith, his own translations and revelations. Consider the versions of the visions of Moses and of Enoch in Old Testament Manuscript One and compare these to what appears, some months later, in Old Testament Manuscript Two. The reader of the Pearl of Great Price, which follows OT 1, will be startled to see familiar, even beloved, words and phrases crossed out and recast. Startled is not strong enough a word, it shocks.

How could the Prophet do such a thing to this or that poetic expression? But he can and he does--and we're here to learn. Here is new scripture, if you will. I had never seen these changes before 2015 or thereabouts (I had noticed, yes, but just couldn't handle them a year or so ago. . .)

Just so, Brother Joseph's contemporaries responded startled, shocked, thrilled, scandalized--you name it--to what they saw in 1830 and thereafter. Imagine the shock of the Creation account in the Book of Moses (1831); an even greater jolt comes with Abraham's take on Creation, or rather, "Organization" (1842).

The living prophet, who struggles to make truth "plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men," not only restores "many plain and precious parts" of scripture (1 Nephi 14:23; 1 Nephi 12:34), he also takes away the unplain and the unprecious--even down to the detail. The deletions require as much inspired attention as do the expansions or the changed word. Each new day breathes new light into a living prophet of God. Will we keep up?

The change in Ezekiel 19:10 prompts a few final insights.

Who is to say the wee change is insignificant? The mother, after all, represents "the entire Davidic royal house." The promised "taking away of [our] stumbling-blocks" of scriptural error, enables us to consider the allegory anew (1 Nephi 14:1).

After passing through the Prophet's hands, new life is breathed into an ancient prophecy, and we receive a pressing invitation: "when [Ezekiel's] record I unfold, all things appear divinely new." Any attention paid by the prophets of our day to Ezekiel, including and especially the focus on Ezekiel 37 and the Book of Mormon, urges us to "Come, let us anew our journey pursue" through this ancient book of prophecy.





Notes

There are Hebraists a-plenty among the Latter-day Saints, and doubtless many have mulled over the text history of Ezekiel 19:10 in light of Brother Joseph's changes to the text. At the same time, it's fascinating how such wee changes in the JST never figure in articles or books. Many Latter-day Saints cut our teeth on Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible (Herald Publishing, 1970), which sets everything in parallel columns. Ezekiel 19:10 is nowhere to be seen in either that volume nor in the official LDS Bible. The latter notes that "in your blood" should be understood, in light of the Hebrew, as "in your likeness." This is to rely on the KJV Translator's Notes: "or, in thy quietness, or, in thy likeness" (see Bible Hub online) or on Rashi. The recent publication of all the manuscripts of the Joseph Smith Translation heralds a new day. 


Copyrighted by Val H. Sederholm, June 2015

Monday, June 15, 2015

Enforcing Priestcraft in London: Anjem Choudary and the Book of Alma


I have sworn upon the Altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man (Thomas Jefferson)

And thus they were prepared (Alma 2:12)


The Book of Mormon sounds the warning. Alma Chapters One and Two have the answers.

Alma, in his secular role as Chief Judge of the Nephites, a free people, pronounces the following judgment upon Nehor, a religious extremist who silences anyone who gets in his way:


"And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction" (Alma 1:12).

"Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law. . . acknowledged by this people" (v. 14).
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/1?lang=eng

A decade or so ago we would have strained to "liken this scripture unto ourselves."


Alma 1 in east London?


"Producer Randall Joyce. . . tells 60 Minutes Overtime that seeing extremists on the streets of London, trying to impose Sharia law on total strangers, was 'a very strange experience. You keep kind of looking around to remind yourself where you really are'" (60 Minutes Overtime, "Recruiting for ISIS," http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes-2/).

You no longer know where you are. You are not in fact any longer anywhere you know.

A proselyte to extremism from Hinduism--we will not say a convert to Islam, which is a religion of peace--a certain Abu Rumaysah, together with "his associates" "have set up so called 'Sharia patrols' to go out and discourage behavior that they deem un-Islamic." Rumaysah soldiers east London armed to the teeth with "hard speeches," even against non-Muslims (see Doctrine and Covenants 124:116). Two youths, lazing by their bikes and drinking a beer, politely nod, as they manage to mumble a submissive: "Okay, okay." A young woman, subjected to his seething anger, as he shouts and afflicts her "with all manner of words" (Alma 1:20), bristles: "It's Great Britain! We must have rights." "It's not Great Britain!" he shouts back. Abu Rumaysah has big plans for the UK, though today he lives in Islamic State controlled Syria. There Sharia patrols enforce by the sword.


"Walking through London with Rumaysah you experience an alternate reality where there is no compromise and all conversations are one sided." "Okay, okay." Assertiveness--"great boldness"--was Nehor's trademark: it's what garnered all the attention, popularity, and cash. He was a large man, "noted for his much strength" and for bold, sweeping theological declarations about universal salvation and the rejoicing and freedom which that good news surely must bring--a certainty for which he stood ready to kill (v.2). He could charm or intimidate on a moment's notice: "bearing down against the Church" or against anybody else holding to a different view about the nature of liberty or that lacked poise, status, or money (v.3).

Strolling to his church to preach had the feel of a Rumaysah patrol. The moment Nehor chanced upon Gideon, pathetically "stricken with many years," though yet famous for his defiance of a royal despot, "he began to contend with him sharply" just to draw an audience. When Gideon, as a member of a free society, expressed his own views about the "words of God," Nehor, moving from sharp words to sharp sword, cut him down at once (v. 7-9). He justified the act, pleading "for himself with much boldness" (v.11). Others, obviously, were to blame for insisting on holding to their own ideas about religion in his presence. Gideon represented the old-fashioned norms of morality and valour. How foolish of them--bigots and sinners all--not to change their ideas in the face of Rights, Rightness, and Righteousness.

Within five brief years, the burgeoning followers of martyr Nehor had become sufficiently powerful and organized to attempt control of the government. When they failed, through intense persuasion, to a) win the "voice of the people," they naturally b) turned to the sword. The "Order of Nehor" lost the gamble, but many died on both sides (Alma Chapter 2).

Alma knows the "awful arithmetic" of freedom: "In one year" "thousands and tens of thousands" perished; "the slain were not numbered, because of the greatness of their number;" "Now many women and children had been slain" (3:2, 3, 26). Just so, "in one year," the "Order of ISIS" has swept through the Middle East and North Africa.


Abu Rumaysah, speaking to CBS reporter Clarissa Ward in October 2014, tells us five times what he wants to see, that is, what he wants to see in your future and in mine.

"Rumaysah: Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe that our patrols are a means to an end" ("Recruiting for ISIS," CBS News 60 Minutes).

This is "to contend sharply." The manner of speech, "verbal jihad," is best exemplified by Anjem Choudary, the leader of the east London extremists. Choudary, following a pattern common to many extremists--Osama Bin Laden is the foremost exemplar--pursued a dissolute life before converting the entire world to an unendurable legal straitjacket (see Graeme Wood, "What ISIS Really Wants," The Atlantic Monthly, March 2015). The sinner, cloaked now in piety, from head to toe, but never able to shake the past or atone for his own sins, strikes out at millions in a fruitless attempt to suppress the irrepressible. If you mean to stop a Nehor, that's where you need to strike--his Achilles' heel is guilt. And what is yours? Guilt is also the card he so studiously plays against you.

But enough of the human condition. Ms Ward wishes to interview Choudary for CBS 60 Minutes, but Choudary will not be put to the question. He accuses Ms Ward of lying and of inciting murder overseas. "You have blood on your neck," he oddly declares. No argument is necessary and he summons no evidence. That's laughably passe. His gushing words--"afflicting them with all manner of words"--constitute neither conversation nor debate. And, sadly, his steamrolling works best on those who play fair and thus "are not proud in their own eyes" (Alma 1:20).

Of course, such verbal dicing works best when the slicer notes how very low the would-be interlocutor measures-up on the scale of violent arrogance, where one cheats to win. To argue with him at all, says Ward, would be at once to lose the game. She is right, according to all tenets of civilized behavior--and she is stunningly wrong. A pose of fairness and a show of restraint--biting the lip--only readies Choudary for an endless "verbal jihad," as he himself labels his studied rhetorical technique. "Verbal jihad" best describes Choudary's open disregard for the religious and civil rights of others, including most Muslims, and his triumphant crowing about how even the winds and the seas play on his side. Here is no journalistic encounter. Any encounter with Nehor leaves either both dead or one exasperated, and thus on the borders of conversion. Alma shows a deft psychological touch in these telling verses.

To so afflict "with all manner of words," says Alma, is cruel and unrelenting religious "persecution" (Alma 1:20). If indeed persecution, then does it not ultimately amount to an injurious and illegal violation of others' religious and civil rights? So it is--consider the wording of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen--but even Alma says it must be borne with patience, for "a strict law among the people of the Church" forbids any member to "arise and persecute" anyone (v.21). The humble followers of God's words and ways, though never silenced, must bear all. We "share our personal witness with conviction and love" and do not contend (Elder Robert D. Hales, "Preserving Agency, Protecting Religious Freedom," Conference Report, April 2015). Such restraint in the face of provocation proved impossible for many hardfisted Church members in Alma's day, but the leaven of sober steadiness inevitably promotes civil discourse everywhere. Should he find you by the way, Nehor has the right to say what he will. Heroic Gideon "admonished" him "with the words of God" (v.7)--and what else could one say in the teeth of such biting winds?--and the admonition proved prophetic, that is, after Gideon's own sudden death.

As for every "proud" soul else, to "contend warmly," then "to smite one another with their fists" and, ultimately, with swords, will be the inevitable result anyhow (Alma 1:22). This is what Choudary would "like to see." This is what ISIS really wants. Should you find yourself among the many "proud," seething with righteous indignation, Uncle Choudary wants you! Come and fight with us. Such all-encompassing recruitment embraces all, partisans and unbelievers alike. By means of the media interview, Choudary inexorably recruits us all. There is no escape for the red-blooded soul, and Choudary knows it, and he knows it triumphantly. When we cannot "withstand" him--and we cannot--we must then stand with him. We stand and fight with him, for him, by him--the semantic niceties matter not at all. Meaningfulness is suspended in the world of apocalyptic extremism (see Graeme Wood, "What ISIS really wants," The Atlantic Monthly, March 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/).

Choudary grants interviews neither to explain himself nor to debate but as an occasion to dominate. He condemns no act of persecution no matter how cruel or unusual. The word games seem churlish and childish, but the will to dominate seeks out a weakening individuality. Ward describes his fast-talking manner as an attempt to dominate her from the beginning. Just so with Abu Rumsiyah who demanded, in violation of Ward's own rights and values, that Ward "cover up!" Ward "withstood" Abu Rumaysah, after a fashion: "That's absurd!"; but there is no withstanding Choudary, a past master of verbal shaming--never mind who he addresses and never mind his inadequate English. Choudary puts blood on your "neck" with stunning equality of opportunity.

Should the United Kingdom allow Sharia patrols or like public and ritualistic verbal domination and shaming? Should such be broadcast on television or, worse, on the Internet? Where will it lead? Just how large has Choudary's audience become? (Or, in hopes of radicalizing children and teens, how small?) Is not his every word an act of recruitment for multitudes of enforcers? And what are his financial resources? Forget al-Baghdadi, Choudary, safe in free London, is the face of religious persecution today, afflicting by word and promising the sword. Should you find yourself a humble believer in God, pure in heart and committed to serve your fellowman, that sword is first meant for you.


We cower easily of late. Choudary's move "to take the law into his own hands is deeply frightening to most British people." We have forgotten Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the Altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." We should swear a spot of eternal hostility today. If not to protect the mind from tyranny, from trampling and from patrolling, of what value remains law? Where is our moral courage?

Alma promises but one outcome to allowance of a domineering and inevitably enforced priestcraft: the tension and agony so generated will, one way or another, "prove [the] entire destruction" of any free people. Entire leaves little room for imagination. Alma's answer? Priestcraft is neither shari'a nor din (religion). Choudary incites enforcement of priestcraft by word, by blow, by sword. He entices to violent crime at home and abroad. His path leads to the Wasteland not to the Well.

Authorities detained Anjem Choudary soon after the Clarissa Ward interview "on suspicion of being a member of a proscribed or banned organization. . .and encouraging terrorism" ("Recruiting for ISIS"), but he walks free today. Law must stop Choudary now.

We move on to Alma Chapter 2.

Like the Nephites, we must be "aware of the intent" of those who wish to "deprive" us of our "rights and privileges" today (Alma 2). Then we will be "prepared to meet them." Like the Nephites, we can reaffirm our laws and rights "by the voice of the people," "every man according to his mind" (see Elder Hales, Conference Report, April 2015). Alma, ever the realist, knows such assemblies and voting perforce bring out "much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another." Such have their due place in a free land: even "wonderful contentions" in organized assemblies and polling, held by the lawful voice and will of people "throughout all the land," trump the private battles of fists he so roundly denounces.

So determined in unity, with "every man" knowing his rights and "his mind," "throughout all the land," we will then "be prepared to meet" whatever else those with "intent to destroy" may offer, whether babblings, or riot, or terror, or war. We will have leaders, awake, "aware," and "prepared," "to lead [us] to war." The scriptural promise is: "they began to flee before them."