posted
Stone Tables by Orson Scott Card A Critical Review by Ariel Vered
[I am unfamiliar with the code used for posting messages in this forum. I hope that I have understood correctly and apologize for any errors]
Full disclosure: I am an observant Jew. I am very well acquainted with both the biblical account of Moses' life, and the traditional Jewish commentary and legend. I think of Moses as my personal hero. I am also an OSC fanatic and a mild evangelist (of OSC, of course); I believe that I have read nearly everything that he has written, and have acquainted many other people with his writings.
As a die-hard OSC fan, I looked forward to reading Stone Tables for some time. I had already read every piece of SF that he has written, and also enjoyed reading both Sarah and Rebekah. Like all OSC novels, this book was written very well. OSC develops characters and plot wonderfully. Though it is not his best or most compelling novel, Stone Tables does not differ substantially from his other books in this respect. It is immensely readable.
Before I criticize aspects of Stone Tables, I would like to unequivocally recommend the book. It is enjoyable and thought provoking. On to my humble complaints:
In his preface to Stone Tables, OSC clearly states that he wrote this novel from the worldview of a Mormon. Though parts of the text may at times sounded a little corny to me, these same passages must undoubtedly make a lot of sense to Mormons. Most notable is the ancients' foreknowledge of Christ. There are some other ideas, like the passing on of secret books from generation to generation that really don't sit very well with me. The whole idea of an elite, secluded, secret priesthood being the sole bearers of wisdom throughout the age is unpleasant to modern minds trained to appreciate meritocracy and scorn aristocracy. Though OSC doesn't call it such, it is hard to interpret his portrayal of a small group of people hoarding secret books containing wisdom not suited for impure ears in any other manner. Knowledge needs to be available to all men, not protected from them. Since I was fairly warned before I started reading Stone Tables, I shan't criticize OSC for doing this. However, I do not find it consistent with views expressed in his other novels and it disturbs me.
OSC also states that his understanding of the biblical account is that it is fundamentally true, but that we don't need to take every detail as absolute. Since he has said these things, it is difficult to take issue with him on instances where he diverges from the strict reading of the bible. I do, however, take issue with him on many instances in Stone Tables where his telling of the story diverges from the biblical text substantially and there is no reason to assume any inconsistencies in the text. In Sarah, for instance, he says that he didn't believe that the story of Abraham's presenting Sarah as his sister in two different situations, and then the same story subsequently repeated yet a third time with Isaac and Rebekah is plausible. He therefore condenses the two (three) stories into a single event.
There could be cases where it is perfectly appropriate for the author to read his own interpretation in to the biblical text. For instance, the bible says nothing about Moses' siblings other than Aaron and Miriam. Did he have any others? More than likely, but the bible doesn't mention them as they have no bearing on what the bible is teaching. The bible is not a historical document, presuming to describe comprehensive historical events or lives. Anything unrelated to the lesson at hand is superfluous to the bible and, necessarily, excluded. Though OSC didn't create additional siblings to Moses that could fill in parts of his story, it would have been OK had he done so. One example where OSC employs this convention is where he interprets the urge for the golden calf as being a leftover from the (supposedly Israelite friendly) Hyksos dynasty. This is plausible.
However, in Stone Tables, there are many instances where the biblical account is completely logical, and OSC chooses a different reading. I do not know if this is because of the author's unfamiliarity with all of the sources, or because it makes the story flow better. I offer only a few examples. This is far from a comprehensive list.
1. In Stone Tables, the baby Moses is placed in a basket on the day that he was born. In the biblical account, Moses is placed on the river when he is three months old because his parents can no longer hide him. Far from trivial, this would mean that Moses was circumcised when Pharaoh's daughter finds him. In certain societies, this may not have presented a problem; in others, it probably would have been quite serious. Potentially, it could mean that the Moses was not a part of official events, probably not even allowed in main palaces. It is more probable that Moses was a tolerated pet of Pharaoh's daughter than an accepted and loved confidant and leader of the Egyptians.
2. Miriam is a bitter old hag according to Stone Tables. Spinsterdom is a major part of her character. Miriam was, in fact, married to Caleb (whom is given a minor supporting role in Stone Tables). This marriage isn't related in Exodus, because it is irrelevant to the story of the redemption from bondage and exile. It is told in Chronicles, because it is relevant to the settling of the Land after Joshua's conquest. (It is also relevant to King David's heritage and some events in Samuel 2.)
3. In Stone Tables, Moses meets Nun, the father of Joshua. There is no reason to assume that they did not meet. Nun introduces his son to Moses as Joshua. The problem is that Nun names his child Hoseah, and likely never knew him as Joshua. Moses is the one who gives him the name of Joshua at the time he is sent out with Caleb and leaders from the other ten tribes to reconnoiter The Land. Hoseah would be an appropriate name for a pleading slave, praying for redemption, to name his child. Joshua is an appropriate name for a free man, confident in the future of his people, and its eventual leader.
4. Moses is eighty years old when he stands before pharaoh. He was forty when he fled to Midian. Immediately after the redemption from Egypt, Joshua is portrayed as a twenty-something year-old man, eager to help organize the movements in the desert. How could he possibly be twenty when Moses met him forty years earlier?
5. OSC constantly uses the phrase "Let my people go" out of its strict context of "Let my people go that they should worship me". The struggle with Egypt is not for temporal freedom, but for the freedom to worship God instead of men, and divine laws instead of arbitrary whims.
None of these minor differences are trivial. Though it might sound like nit-picking, each of these changes reflects a severe departure from the original text and its meaning. For instance, the extremely rare changing of a name in the Bible (Avram to Avraham, for instance) signifies someone's advancing to an entirely new existence, necessarily on a higher philosophical plane. Joshua and Hoseah are not to be confused because they are not the same person. Joshua grew out of Hoseah.
These discrepancies, however, pale in comparison to my biggest problem with Stone Tables. The book supposes to tell the life of Moses, when in actually it tells but a small portion of it. Alternatively, it is possible that the purpose of the novel is not to tell the story of Moses, but rather it is a dramatization of the historical events leading up to the giving of The Law at Sinai. However, if this were the case, then there would be little reason to start the chain of events with Moses' birth. The heroic, poetic, and tragic aspects of Moses' life are not relayed in Stone Tables. Unfortunately, these discrepancies together with the very selectively chosen events of Moses' life leave the impression that Stone Tables is more reminiscent of a Kayesque 'historical fiction without bothering to check the actual history' than it is to a dramatization of the life of the prophet. Evidently, the purpose of this novel is to tell the story of Moses, and in this respect, it fails.
There is a lot of drama in the life of Moses. There is an incredible story to tell, and OSC is one of the few modern authors who have the ability to tell that story, to relate the ancient drama of Moses' life to modern eyes and ears. Throughout his entire life, Moses is constantly forced to see green pastures awaiting him just ahead, yet unable to reach them. He is betrayed by all, yet he never waivers in his faith for even a moment. Again, this is not a comprehensive list, just a few things that pop to mind:
1. As a baby, Moses is torn from his family because of a vicious dictator's evil decree.
2. He is miraculously saved, and reunited with his mother, but again torn away as soon as he is weaned.
3. Moses takes a heroic stand for justice, and is forced into exile as a result.
4. He returns to Egypt only after the pharaoh that has decried his death himself dies. He is unable to publicly defend himself.
5. In his many years as a shepherd in Midian, Moses obviously learns humility and the traits necessary to lead his people. He is spoken to directly by God, but cannot approach the bush. He knows that his future is to deliver his people, but has to wait many years. [Not in Stone Tables.]
6. When he comes to lead his people into redemption, he relies upon his brother to perform the first plagues. Because of the debt that he owes to the Nile for saving him, he cannot turn the water to blood; he cannot bring frogs or lice because of their toll on the Nile. In his greatest moment, the exiled, unwanted son of a Hebrew slave returns to redeem his nation. He cannot even make the historical proclamation "Let my people go that they will worship me", but must instead stand aside and watch as his brother takes the lead role.
7. When they finally leave Egypt, they arrive at the sea, sandwiched between it and the approaching Egyptians. The Israelites need only continue. This is the people that just saw the ten plagues, divinely ordained for their sole benefit. Does anyone have any doubts? Everyone.
8. The sea has split. The Israelites have walked on dry land and seen Egypt drowned. Surely, now everyone will finally understand God as Moses does. No one could further doubt God or his intentions. Nevertheless, after a momentary euphoria, instead of resolve to achieve their destiny, the people think that God brought them there to die of thirst.
9. The Divine Presence Itself speaks with the people. They accept the law wholeheartedly, "We will obey, and we will listen," they proclaim. No gods of silver or gods of gold-"We will obey and we will listen!" No other gods before Me-"We will obey and we will listen!" They miscalculate Moses' return time by six hours and already they have a golden god before Him. Moses has fasted for 40 days and nights to learn the intricacies of the law and bring them to the people. This is his reward.
10. Moses goes up Sinai an additional time. He begs forgiveness for the people. God agrees to let Moses 'see' him, yet Moses is not capable of 'seeing' his face, but, symbolically, can only 'see' his retreating back.
11. A year later, they start moving towards The Land. Moses sends a mission to reconnoiter The Land. They return bearing incredible fruits and telling of the bounty of their Promised Land. But wait, there's also some really big idolaters living there, and we're afraid. "What do you mean you're afraid, didn't you see what God did for you in Egypt?" Eh… Then maybe we should go back there? What do we need to do to get some faith around here?
12. "I've had enough of this. Let's get rid of this stiff-necked people and start a new one with you," God suggests to Moses. Again, Moses must beg forgiveness for the people. God forgives, but decrees that no one over 20 will enter The Land. Moses is over 20. In his jealousy for the people's well being he sacrifices his own future.
13. Korach and his faction have had enough of the desert life. They miss the quiet servitude of Egypt, especially the watermelon. In their audacity, they even sacrilegiously call Egypt 'the land of milk and honey', the same description that God and Moses have been promising for The Land.
14. Near the end of his life, before entering The Land, the Israelites defeat two Amorite kingdoms and take their lands. This defeat is apparently to prepare the people mentally for the conquest of The Land, and not for the sake of inheriting the conquered lands. Two and a half tribes come to Moses telling him that they prefer to stay there rather than go up to The Land. Moses pleads with them, "Please, don't reject The Land as your fathers did." As a consolation prize, they agree to send their warriors to help conquer The Land before permanently settling their homesteads.
15. As the logical conclusion to his life, Moses is allowed to see the Promised Land, but not to enter it.
In every step that he takes, Moses' faith is challenged, either personally or nationally. Throughout it all, Moses remains the ultimate man of faith. He does not waiver for a moment. He remains humble and loyal. Appropriately, he dies alone on a desert mountaintop, with no grave.
In the Jewish tradition, we assign authors to the various books of the bible. Moses received the Torah from God at Sinai, Joshua wrote the book of Joshua, David and his court wrote Psalms, and so forth. The only book actually accredited to Moses is Job. Perhaps it is clear why. Job is not a tale, nor is it an allegory about choices and good and evil; it is an autobiography. Through it, Moses tells the tale of his life as a man whose faith is continuously challenged. Quite differently from Moses, all that he has lost is eventually restored to Job. Since he undoubtedly wrote Job before his death, it is safe to assume that Moses expired his last breath still confident in his belief. Is seeing The Land without entering it enough?
Is Moses a complete failure or the most successful man in history? This is an interesting dilemma, and probably the primary question that should be examined in a book about Moses' life. This question wasn't answered, or even considered in Stone Tables. Though the book was exciting and a great read, I was looking forward to Card's reading, not of the events, but of the man. Perhaps there is still hope that he will one day write a book called Moses that will delve into these issues. For now, Stone Tables has left me with a taste of disappointment.
quote: an elite, secluded, secret priesthood being the sole bearers of wisdom throughout the age
Many people confuse the word "secret" with the word "sacred". Wow! You have a great love and knowledge of the life of Moses. I can't speak for OSC, but I do think that he wrote a work of fiction when he wrote Stone Tables, based loosely on the stories in the Bible. Clearly he took many liberties. I can't remember for sure, but I think he states this in the Preface or somewhere. I'll look it up if you want. Anyway, as you said, it was a great read and I don't (and didn't) read it as historical fact. I just appreciate OSC's talent as a writer and his wonderful imagination.
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
About the priesthood: I don't see that it's a novel concept. Not everyone can officiate in the church. One has to be worthy. I'm sure in the Judaic faith not everyone can become a rabbi. There would be things one had to do to qualify. And not everyone is a part of a religion today. It would be no different then. Some would choose to obey and serve the Lord, and some would choose to be wicked. Now, today, the scriptures are available to the wicked, because anyone can get their hands on a copy thanks to the printing press. It would have been much more difficult to make copies then, especially those that would last, so naturally not everyone would have some. As far as Moses' circumcision, that's how the Pharoah's daughter knew right away that he was an Israelite. But you are correct, he did change lots of info and use other bits in ways that none of us might have, but that's just him. By the way, do you like Chaim Potok?
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Tables does at least reverse the impression left from the film "The Ten Commandments" that the Israelites crafted the Golden Calf in ignorance. I think it deserves to be compared to that, as an inspiring work for entertainment, and for me it compares favorably in every respect. Why make inspiring entertainment? I'm more likely to read/view the whole thing than an essay. Stone Tables got me to pick up the Old Testament to get the rest of the story. A work with self contained structure, like the film or an essay, does not.
Also, I thought "40 years" is not necessarily a literal span of time (nor 40 days, etc.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my understanding of contemporary Egyptian culture, Egyptians at that time DID in fact also circumcise, as did other peoples of the ancient world. The difference was that for Israelites it was part of the covenant, not just a hygienic or aesthetic practice.
I also noticed some SERIOUS liberties taken with time passage in all three Genesis-based books, at least according to the Bible I'm reading. I'd forgotten about the Joshua bit.
I agree that Stone Tables is an inadequate portrait of the whole man Moses, but I don't think it was meant to be that in the first place. It focuses on the creation of a leader, one man's growth that reflects the growth of a people; it only needed to take Moses through Sinai to show this. What we have here is a partial biography. And not a stunningly accurate one, at that, as you've pointed out, but for OSC's purposes (er, as I perceive them) a thorough treatment of the whole life of Moses wasn't necessary.
posted
Thank you all for your valuable comments. I appreciate your taking the time to read my lengthy review and respond to it. I apologize for not responding quicker. I have been away for a few days with no web access.
Utah -- I did not confuse secret with sacred. Something is sacred because some group of people assign a degree of holiness to it. Something is secret because a group of people seek to hide knowledge from the general population.
Venoms -- my problem is not with the existence of a priesthood, but rather with the secret knowledge that they keep from the people. As Card writes from a Mormon worldview, I understand from a Jewish worldview. According to this, Divine knowledge was given to man at Sinai. It now exists for any man to embrace should he so choose. There is no secret annex only for 'our guys'.
Pooka -- I disagree. Why should Stone Tables be compared to the movie The Ten Commandments. Of course there are similarities, but there have been thousands of other artistic interpretations of the story.
40 years should be taken as close to literal as possible. It might be 39.5 years, but the intention is clear that everyone who was over the age of 20, including Moses, was to die in the wilderness.
Lissandre -- Thanks for the comment about circumcission. The point is interesting and well taken. Card has clearly decided which Egyptian dynasty was that of his 'Pharoah'. It is not entirely clear which one it in actuality was.
posted
Shalom, Ariel! As another observant Jew, who has been here slightly longer than you have, welcome! That is one of the best thought-out reviews of Stone Tables I have seen!
To comment on your list of flaws:
1. Well, the midrash says that says that the reason Yochebed was able to hide Moses for 3 months was that he was premature -- and would therefore likely not have been circumcised. And many Jews did not circumcise in Egypt -- but the tribe of Levi did. Then again, Moses was born circumcised according to the midrash. So whether or not he would have been circumcised, even at 3 months, is debatable.
2. Good point
3. True. In fact, I believe there is evidence that Nun did not leave Egypt. Can't come up with a source at the moment.
4. It's that New Math.
5. True, although this is a common problem, and not unique to this one book.
quote: He knows that his future is to deliver his people, but has to wait many years.
On what do you base this? He speaks with God at the burning bush, and then immeditely returns to Jethro and says he's leaving. There is no evidence that he knew he was meant to deliver his people -- look at how long he debates the point with God!
quote: He cannot even make the historical proclamation "Let my people go that they will worship me"
I don't see this. It says (Ex 5:1), Moses and Aaron said this. (Oh, and he could not bring lice because of his debt to the ground, not the Nile.) Actually, the one who should have been jealous was Aaron! Several years older than Moses, spent all of his life being a leader to his people, trying to alleviate their suffering. Then, boom! the same little brother who got everyone so excited years ago comes back, after decades away, and steals much of the thunder! Suddenly Aaron is in a supporting role, instead of the lead.
quote: goes up Sinai an additional time
Moses went up a total of three 40-day periods.
quote: Moses is over 20. In his jealousy for the people's well being he sacrifices his own future.
First of all, he had every reason to believe that he would be the exception. Actually, considering that most of that generation died the year they turned 60, he WAS an exception -- and not the only one. (Actually, the entire group that should have died the 40th year also survived -- the source of the minor holiday on the 15th of Av.)
Moreover, there are midrashim that indicate that Moses could not have entered the Land in any case, and that he was aware of this. Hmm, although the rock-striking incident occurred after this . . .
quote: He does not waiver for a moment.
Ahhh . . . well, that brings us back to striking the rock, I think. Why he struck it is a subject of volumes and volumes of debate. However, some possible explanations do involve a wavering of his faith.
quote: Job is not a tale, nor is it an allegory about choices and good and evil; it is an autobiography. Through it, Moses tells the tale of his life
This is a minority opinion. A more commonly accepted midrash places Job in Pharoah's palace, as the adviser who did not speak out against the plan to enslave the Jews.
(Hmm, I just realized I should define midrash. Perhaps in the way I am using it, it is best defined as a traditional reading or background to the text, handed down by the Oral Tradition that eventually became the Talmud.)
pooka
quote: Also, I thought "40 years" is not necessarily a literal span of time (nor 40 days, etc.)
*blinks* Certainly I was taught these timespans are very literal.
Lissande
quote: Egyptians at that time DID in fact also circumcise, as did other peoples of the ancient world
I don't believe this is true. In fact, Jews who wanted to blend in with the Egyptian culture attempted to disguise their circumcision, as later Jews would do much later in the time of the Syrian-Greeks for the same reason.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I did not confuse secret with sacred. In Stone Tables. Something is sacred because some group of people assign a degree of holiness to it. Something is secret because a group of people seek to hide knowledge from the general population.
Maybe I need to reread the book, but what were they trying to hide? My understanding is that they shared the word of God with everyone. If you had sacred books or writings, wouldn't you pass them down from generation to generation? The books would take forever to rewrite to give to others. My point is that I'm sure the knowledge that was contained in the books was shared with everyone. They were not secret, but I'm sure they were safeguarded. Moses, as a prophet of God, was the mouthpiece for God and it was his duty to share all that was contained in the books with everyone. That is my understanding. Would everyone at that time be able to read the sacred books?
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't want to get into a discussion about various midrashim and what may be our different understandings of them. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place. I will try to answer your points briefly.
quote:On what do you base this? He speaks with God at the burning bush, and then immeditely returns to Jethro and says he's leaving.
Just because that's what happened in Stone Tables doesn't mean that it's what really happened. Sinai is very far from Midyan. Moses returns, and tells Yetro. After that he is commanded to leave Midyan (Ex 4:19) If he left immediatley there would be no need for a further command.
quote:There is no evidence that he knew he was meant to deliver his people -- look at how long he debates the point with God!
Of course it was him. How else could he possibly understand "Go and gather the elders", "and they will listen to your voice" and many other such things? He knew well advance that he was the one.
quote:First of all, he had every reason to believe that he would be the exception. Actually, considering that most of that generation died the year they turned 60, he WAS an exception -- and not the only one.
Not to beleagure the point, but Moses actually does die in The Land. The Emori kingdoms have been captured and annexed to The Land. God specifically says that only Kalev and Yehoshua will enter the land.
quote:This is a minority opinion. A more commonly accepted midrash places Job in Pharoah's palace, as the adviser who did not speak out against the plan to enslave the Jews.
I think that I have added a compelling arguement for Mosaic authorship. I don't know what the exact score was before, but I'm sure that it's now the majority view.
Utah
quote:If you had sacred books or writings, wouldn't you pass them down from generation to generation?
I'm not familiar with the Mormon beliefs, but I am pretty sure that this has something to do with them. In Sarah, Woman of Genesis Card uses a similar theme. There, OSC writes that Avraham wrote a book and gave it to Malkeitzedek. Perhaps he is suggesting that this is the same book that later found its way to Moses who passed it on to his son, and was later lost only to be rediscovered in the eastern United States 3500 years later.
posted
My awe at your knowledge of Jewish theology is properly balanced by realizing that you seem to be as ignorant of LDS theology as I am of Jewish.
The scriptures were, and are, sacred. When they were rare, it was paramount that their purity be kept intact. Their teachings were spoken freely, but only those who could read and who had an enduring faith and desire to obey God, and thus retell the stories accurately could have access. This is a very different way of dealing with scripture today, when anyone can refer (indeed, as you have here) to it and confirm that what someone has taught them is really there. It may seem counter to God's desire that all men learn of him, but is in fact very consistant in a society without a printing press and where literacy was only among the clerics and the populous relied on the clerics to relate to them what was in the scripture.
The scripture that was found in the Eastern United States is not the scripture from Israel, but Lehi's family copy of the sacred scripture was brought to the Americas and some was quoted. What Joseph Smith found was a compilation (made specifically to teach about God) of the history of people who were descended from Lehi and the people's they became a part of. It spans from 600 BC, when Lehi's family left Jerusalem and came to the Americas, to 400 AD, when the culture they founded collapsed. The record was, in fact, written more for the benefit of the native peoples of America than for us gentiles.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took the Stone Tables 'sacred writings' to be a reference to the LDS Book of Moses - would that be a correct assumption?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't want to get into a discussion about various midrashim and what may be our different understandings of them. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place.
Fair enough.
quote: Just because that's what happened in Stone Tables doesn't mean that it's what really happened.
Actually, I don't have Stone Tables here to refer to. I just pulled out a Chumash. God finishes telling Moses about the staff (Ex 4:17); Moses returns to Jethro (here called Jether), asks and receives permission to leave (4:18); God reassures Moses that all those who wish to kill him are dead (4:19); Moses now feels safe enough to bring along his wife and sons, and they leave for Egypt. (4:20)
Seems pretty immediate to me. :shrug:
quote: How else could he possibly understand "Go and gather the elders", "and they will listen to your voice" and many other such things? He knew well advance that he was the one.
He has spent years away from Egypt, and shows no signs of ever planning to return. He settles in Midian, takes a wife, has children.
These are not the acts of a man who is waiting to be called.
He argues at least three times against God having chosen him to go: "Who am I that I should go?" (Ex 3:11); "But they will not believe me and they will not heed my voice" (4:1) -- in spite of the fact that God has just said "They will heed your voice" (3:18)! Then Moses objects that he is "heavy of mouth and heavy of speech" (4:10); and asks God to choose someone else (4:13).
These are not the words of a man who expected to be sent.
And speaking of his words, "heavy of mouth and heavy of speech" is sometimes meant to refer to some time of speech impediment -- not likely to make Moses think he was intended to be a leader.
As far as understanding who the elders were, his father was one of them. In addition, while living in the palace, surely he would have been aware of the Jewish leaders?
quote: Not to beleagure the point, but Moses actually does die in The Land.
(Deut 34:5) "So Moses, servant of God, died there, in the land of Moab," high upon Mt. Nabo, able to see the Land, but never actually within its borders. He was not in the lands of either Sichon or Og.
In any case, the lands on that side of the Jordan would not be fully annexed until the rest of the land was conquered. Not until after many years and many battles does Joshua release the two-and-a-half tribes "to the land of their possession, of which they took possession." (Joshua 22:9) That is, they had only partly owned them before they fulfilled their part of the bargain they had made with Moses. Even then, Transjordan never quite had the same status as the rest of the Land.
quote: God specifically says that only Kalev and Yehoshua will enter the land.
Indeed, but near the end of the forty years.
quote: I think that I have added a compelling arguement for Mosaic authorship.
I was not debating Mosaic authorship. I was debating whether it was autobiographical.
Thank you, by the way! I haven't had such a stimulating discussion in weeks -- the classes I take are both on hiatus.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My awe at your knowledge of Jewish theology is properly balanced by realizing that you seem to be as ignorant of LDS theology as I am of Jewish.
Yes, I am nearly completely ignorant of LDS. Outside of a brief tour of the temple in Salt Lake City, I have no experience with the Mormon Church and faith. I know only that it is distinct from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism in that it accepts additional books into its canon, whereas the aforementioned accept only the Old and New Testaments.
Though I risk sounding callous about somebody else's beliefs, I wasn't actually that far off with my conjectures. Only instead of the same book in Sarah and Stone Tables the referred to books are distinct.
quote: The scriptures were, and are, sacred. When they were rare, it was paramount that their purity be kept intact. Their teachings were spoken freely, but only those who could read and who had an enduring faith and desire to obey God, and thus retell the stories accurately could have access. This is a very different way of dealing with scripture today, when anyone can refer (indeed, as you have here) to it and confirm that what someone has taught them is really there. It may seem counter to God's desire that all men learn of him, but is in fact very consistant in a society without a printing press and where literacy was only among the clerics and the populous relied on the clerics to relate to them what was in the scripture.
I'm not sure what is opinion here and what is formal theology. I respect your beliefs and do not intend to criticize your theology, but I differ greatly on the ideas that you have stated here. I hope that I am criticizing only your opinion and not your religious beliefs.
The central reason why the Levi tribe does not have any land of their own is that their job is to act as teachers. [Priests and Levis served one four week shift a year in the temple, and spent the rest of the time dispersed amongst the tribes teaching the people.] Claiming illiteracy is a cop-out. It is the job of the learned to ensure that everyone knows. How would you expect one to receive an 'enduring faith in God' with no learning? Instead, you should demand that they teach everyone to read before they teach faith.
The society that you describe, where only the clerics know and understand scripture is corrupt and corrupting. The scripture, and all writing and knowledge is for everyone and always has been.
posted
..parts of the text may at times sounded a little corny to me, these same passages must undoubtedly make a lot of sense to Mormons. Most notable is the ancients' foreknowledge of Christ.
Actually, this knowledge would sound very logical to anyone who has thoroughly studied the Old Testament. It is full of prophesies concerning The Christ, all of which (IMHO) were fulfilled by the life of Jesus.
If one assumes that the prophets shared the scriptural knowledge with the general populace, then that populace would understand and be looking forward to the coming of a Messiah.
...the passing on of secret books from generation to generation that really don't sit very well with me. The whole idea of an elite, secluded, secret priesthood being the sole bearers of wisdom throughout the age...
...his portrayal of a small group of people hoarding secret books...
I didn't take his portrayal in that light at all. Rather than "hoarders," I viewed the prophets as "protectors" of the word. My impression was that these words would be freely shared with all people, and carefully and accurately passed down to the next generation.
Knowledge needs to be available to all men, not protected from them.
While I agree with this in principle, the sharers of knowledge must be very careful in doing so. People who obtain a certain knowledge are then required by the Divine to act in accordance with that knowledge. If a person is not prepared to act accordingly, then additional knowledge does him or her no good.
Jesus frequently taught in parables for this precise reason. Those who were spiritually in tune understood the underlying truths. Those not in tune simply went away puzzled at this bizzare man who told stories about sheep, shepherds, widows, mites, motes, beams and talents.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wanting to bump this thread forward again, because it's so very meaty, and because I have finished Sarah, am in the middle of Rachel and Leah, and have Stone Tables sitting here waiting for me to start it. I hope that Ariel is still here: If he doesn't get back into it, I may try to e-mail him to get his attention back... I know Pooka and Rivka are.
I don't, btw, mind "spoilers": anybody who's read Genesis and Exodus is already well spoiled! ;^)
I'm a lifelong student of the Bible, orthodox Christian, somewhere between Protestant and Catholic, or some of both, and have "little Latin and less Greek" and practically no Hebrew except what I've read _about_ the language in the course of reading about the Bible in English. I notice that there's a bit of ignorance here of other groups' reading of the Scriptures, and the origins and translations of those Scriptures, and believe that the various understandings need to be laid on the table, in hopes that light rather than heat may be generated from the cross-disciplinary friction, putting our various knowledges together like a jigsaw.
But just to complicate things here, there may be a thunderstorm coming, locally, and I should post this and shut down or risk losing it--as I said, I want to get it from the ancient pages back to the top. Next time I start, I'll probably start in word processing first and paste to the reply form.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not familiar with the Mormon beliefs, but I am pretty sure that this has something to do with them. In Sarah, Woman of Genesis Card uses a similar theme. There, OSC writes that Avraham wrote a book and gave it to Malkeitzedek. Perhaps he is suggesting that this is the same book that later found its way to Moses who passed it on to his son, and was later lost only to be rediscovered in the eastern United States 3500 years later. - Ariel
quote:The scripture that was found in the Eastern United States is not the scripture from Israel, but Lehi's family copy of the sacred scripture was brought to the Americas and some was quoted. What Joseph Smith found was a compilation (made specifically to teach about God) of the history of people who were descended from Lehi and the people's they became a part of. It spans from 600 BC, when Lehi's family left Jerusalem and came to the Americas, to 400 AD, when the culture they founded collapsed. The record was, in fact, written more for the benefit of the native peoples of America than for us gentiles. - Amka
Why do you assume he was talking about the book of Mormon here? To me it was obvious he was referring to the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he was talking about the Pearl of Great Price, but got it mixed up with the Book of Mormon. Not unusual, although it can be confusing for Mormons to answer questions when things are mixed up.
Now the Pearl of Great price is made up of two different things of related interest. The first is Book of Moses that is really the (non-manuscript available) "translation" of the first Chapters of Genesis. The other is the Book of Abraham with a manuscript that was found in Egypt and brought to the United States where Joseph Smith saw it and made "translations" from the papyra.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think he was talking about the Pearl of Great Price, but got it mixed up with the Book of Mormon. Not unusual, although it can be confusing for Mormons to answer questions when things are mixed up.
Now the Pearl of Great price is made up of two different things of related interest. The first is Book of Moses that is really the (non-manuscript available) "translation" of the first Chapters of Genesis. The other is the Book of Abraham with a manuscript that was found in Egypt and brought to the United States where Joseph Smith saw it and made "translations" from the papyra.
I gathered this as well. I thought she was referencing the Book of Moses/Abraham, but now I am not sure if she was mixing The book of Moses up with the Book of Mormon or if she was only referencing the Book of Moses/Abraham.
Either way it was an enjoyable review.
edit: I think its a habit to believe she is referring to the BOM because that is the much more well known volume. Its a rare person who even knows of the Doctrine and Covenants, much less the Pearl of Great Price.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The time compression, and other such liberties are more understandable if you remember that the book was originally written as a stage play. A musical stage play at that.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, the majority of this thread was posted 3.5 years ago. Most of the posts (including all of Ariel's) you are responding to are from posters long gone.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I noticed the time stamp on them, but I just don't have enough self control to not comment when I see it.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card couldn't even adapt his own work without massively bending "canon". I speak here of Ender's Shadow being to Ender's Game as Stone Tables is to Exodus. Do you italicize books of the Bible? Anywho, today I was listening to a scene from EG where Bean said something "angrily" and I suddenly realized what bothered me about those parts of ES. Card changed Bean's motivation throughout the story. I could never put my finger on it before. Of course, I really like the new story. ES is a better story for me, though I am beginning to recognize that my opinion of a story does not determine who is a worthy member of Western Civilization.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, now that I realize that Ariel is gone, I feel much more comfortable posting
I think that I would have preferred for Bean to be closer to what he was in Ender's Game, partly because Card couldn't resist the temptation of making him a cuddly kid in the end after all. Also, the Bean from Ender's Game wasn't as angsty and nervous about stuff all the time. He was a little kid, and a soldier, and thus had the kind of confidence that comes from both.
So Card doesn't write soldiers or little kids very well. So what? It was still a really cool book, and so was Stone Tables.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to do homework before posting in this (yeah, I did post, but mainly for the purpose of bumping it to the top: it was so far down that I was afraid it'd drop off the bottom within days). Unfortunately, there's an enormous amount of homework to do and read, especially in a multi-denominational forum, especially while demonstrating respect to other participants' Holy Scripture (and they should be read anyway, as possibly true alternate versions). At least I don't think there are any Muslims participating, they have still another version, purporting to have been dictated to Muhammed by God or an angel, a couple of thousand years after the events in question, in which, among other things, Ishmael rather than Isaac was the Child of the Promise. But I don't think I'll even try to get into that! There's enough already on my plate!
Things I know well enough and have studied enough originally that they are part of my basic body of knowledge, and I can talk about them "off the top of my head": The Protestant Old Testament, English (and other languages) translation from the Masoretic Hebrew text, itself a rather late standardization of many mss from the earlier Hebrew versions--about 800 CE. (Also the NT, which hasn't many differences other than the late translational between the Prot. and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, but which also has a lot of "apocryphal" books clustered around the "outside" of the Canonical, and which is relevant because of references to the OT, especially pointing out prophecies or foreknowledge of Christ, which OSC remarked non-Mormons wouldn't swallow, but which are well-documented in basic Christianity, from the NT through the Fathers on forward. The other item I know fairly well "off the top of my head" (OTTOMH) is Kinship Structures : Structural Anthropology Kinship Theory, which I learned about first in class at KU forty years ago, not nearly as long ago as I began my OT, which goes back to my infancy. This is very relevant and illustrated by the marriages of both Patriarchs and Pharoahs.
Things I have known less intimately for years, and have in paper on my shelves, but haven't really studied well enough to use as sources and comparisons: The Book of Mormon Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", both of which OSC cited as sources The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments, basically translations into English from the Septuagint, an early translation into Greek of those books that the Jews were using as Holy Scripture at the time of the Greek Translation, about 300 BCE, and which probably was from earlier Hebrew sources than the Masoretes used 700 years or so later. It also has some "extra" books, some of which may have never existed in Hebrew but might have been originally written in Greek, like Maccabees, which the Masoretes rejected, and therefore the Protestants did also. It appears to have been the version used by Jesus (Greek form of Y'Shua) and his disciples, who quoted from it, though not from the books unique to it.
Brand-new homework: Pearl of Great Price and other Mormon Scriptures (other than the Book of Mormon refererenced above)--Thanks to Pooka for pointing me to a web source for them in another place.
Then there are quite a lot of ancient writings that I have both on paper and some of which are linked from the Church Fathers homepage above, of possible partial veracity, but considered Inspired by nobody much, things that have been either dug up relatively recently, like the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or, for that matter, the Mormon Scriptures, as in "dug up recently"), or handed down through time as more-or-less plain literature--some of those can be found near the bottom of the Church Fathers page referenced above.
And, duh, I forgot to mention the body of Archaeological and Egyptological information, quite a bit of which I have on paper also, and some of which is vague parts of my body of knowledge, but mostly too vague to talk about OTTOMH.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least I don't think there are any Muslims participating . . .
In fact there are Muslims who are regulars on this forum. Just so you know.
Well, I hope they will bring their Scriptural version of the events in the four books into the discussion, Koran or wherever. I sure have enough versions of the events on my homework plate as it is! ;^)
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And not a stunningly accurate one, at that, as you've pointed out, but for OSC's purposes (er, as I perceive them) a thorough treatment of the whole life of Moses wasn't necessary.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
