Bradley J. Kramer
About the Interview: The Book of Mormon contains a multitude of short, impressive statements, which Latter-day Saints often memorize and even “master,” so they can repeat them as the occasion requires. These statements include divine promises such as “Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land” (2 Ne. 1:20); inspiring resolutions such as Nephi’s commitment to “go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (1 Ne. 3:7); theological insights such as “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25); as well as ringing assertions such as “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10) and “charity is the pure love of Christ” (Moro. 7:47).
Nevertheless, despite the obvious utility of these statements, Bradley J. Kramer asserts that “the Book of Mormon is simply too much of a book to be approached simply as a source of quotations. It is a sophisticated literary work where ideas do not exist in isolation, but where wording, characterization, setting, description, plot, as well as their placement in the canon relative to other scriptures must be considered in order to be fully understood and appreciated. The Book of Mormon consequently demands a comprehensive, in-depth literary approach.”
In this episode of the Latter-day Saint Perspectives Podcast, Laura Harris Hales interviews Bradley J. Kramer about his book Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon. In this book, Kramer outlines what he means by a “comprehensive, in-depth literary approach” and employs many of the techniques developed by Talmudic and post-Talmudic rabbis in order to show how this approach applies to the Book of Mormon.
Kramer makes no claim that Nephi, Jacob, and the other authors of the Book of Mormon were personally acquainted with these techniques or consciously employed them as they wrote. Nonetheless, since this rabbinic approach represents what he calls “universal principles” of effective reading that have been specifically adapted for scriptural narratives, he feels they are well suited to the Book of Mormon.
As Kramer asks, “Given that these rabbis took seriously the words of the Hebrew scriptures; assumed that these scriptures formed a coherent, meaningful, and inspired whole; and devoted themselves to scrutinizing every aspect of that whole in order to uncover subtle, sometimes hidden messages from God, why would their approach not work well with other scriptures? And why would it not work especially well with the Book of Mormon, a scripture that, like the Hebrew scriptures, tells a story of how a group of Jews left their homes, journeyed to a far off Promised Land, attempted to create a ‘holy nation,’ sinned under judges as well as kings, received prophetic warnings of destruction if they did not repent, failed to repent, and were ultimately dispersed or destroyed along with their capital city?”
Kramer, clearly, thinks it does and includes in his book several examples to defend his position. For instance, the Talmudic and post-Talmudic rabbis taught that the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) has at least seventy “faces” or meanings (Numbers Rabbah 13:15). They, therefore, encouraged their students to read the Torah on multiple levels—something Kramer feels the writers of the Book of Mormon do as well.
As he points out, not only does the Book of Mormon contain at least one highly developed allegory (Zenos’s allegory of the olive tree), but Lehi’s dream demonstrates how simple elements in the Book of Mormon (mocking people in Jerusalem, a river and fruit in the wilderness, darkness in which Nephi creeps to find Laban’s house) can be interpreted allegorically—much as Nephi’s vision and his lecturing of his brothers afterwards shows how the meaning of these elements can be expanded sermonically as well as mystically, through direct experience with the divine.
These rabbis also advocated that their students study everything about the Torah—from its larger context to the shape of its letters—and to contemplate it slowly, carefully, “turning” it over, again and again, like fertile soil. “For,” as they taught, “everything is in it.” Therefore, “wax grey and old over it, and stir not from it, for thou hast no better rule than this” (Pirke Avot 5:25). This also seems consistent with the Book of Mormon’s oft-repeated enjoinder to search the scriptures as well as providing examples of people doing so.
In many ways, the rabbinic approach is not unlike the approach employed in any standard college literature class. However, it also involves some specific emphases or “keys,” which Kramer explains and demonstrates with examples from the Book of Mormon as well as the Hebrew scriptures. These keys include searching for meaningful similarities between different texts as well as differences in similar texts, examining repetitions and redundancies to see if they truly are such, and noting subtle but significant variations in the order and presentation of words in a common sequence.
In this podcast, Kramer discusses these topics as well as how the books in the Book of Mormon are intertwined structurally and thematically with the Hebrew scriptures; how Mormon functions as a rabbinic commentator in the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, and the later books of Nephi; how Nephi attempts to form a Jewish style “study buddy” relationship with his readers; and how this relationship epitomizes the way the Holy Ghost leads, guides, and inspires reader throughout their study of this amazing book.
About Our Guest: Bradley J. Kramer holds an MA in English from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a BA in English from Brigham Young University with a minor in Near Eastern Studies. As the son of an LDS mother and a non-LDS father, he has had a life-long interest in interfaith dialogue. For the last several years, he has been a regular participant in Torah and Talmud classes at a local synagogue in Durham, North Carolina, and has helped arrange joint Mormon-Jewish study sessions and other educational exchanges. He is the author of Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon.
This podcast is cross-posted with the permission of LDS Perspectives Podcast.
Just ordered your book (a friend sent me a link of this interview), and look forward to reading it. The BoM often falls flat for readers because it lacks the rich commentary, imaginative conjecture and “turning” (as you quote Rabbi Tarfon urging) that most better town sacred texts have. I first studied the BoM seriously at BYU, and now 30 years later – years I’ve spent deeply engaged with Jewish texts, Rabbinic commentary and living a mostly observant Jewish life (I converted from Mormonism, a religious tradition I am still fond of and admire), having re-visited the BoM (for a book I’m writing), was struck by how little Talmud-like commentary there is to it. I’d suggest (and I anticipate this is your theses), that the commentary enriches our spiritual access to sacred texts, and allows for an active “conversation” with generations of thinkers and “G-d wrestlers” who preceded us. I sense the LDS world is beginning to develop a more Talmud approach, which will enrich the spiritual and theological discussion for all.
Thanks for ordering my book, Richard. As far as the LDS world developing a more Talmud-like approach to the Book of Mormon, I very much hope so–and promoting this approach is why I wrote this book. As I wrote in this book, “I am presenting my work as a beginning of a discussion, as an introduction of a new and extremely productive way of looking at the Book of Mormon, and not as the ultimate statement of how approaching the Book of Mormon rabbinically could or should work.” I very much hope that others–including yourself–can continue this discussion and refine it. As I was taught in the Torah classes I took (and continue to take) at a local synagogue, the Torah is a very durable book. It can take all the questions, comments, and challenges we throw at it–respectfully presented or not–and still provide divine answers. I believe this is true of the Book of Mormon as well. Have at it and good luck with your book!
Brad,
I love the approach of taking the text and reformatting or re-paragraphing it for clarity and even enrichment, of course without changing the text itself. It reminds me of the delightful Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, by the JPS, which brilliantly does just that for the OT.
Thanks for your work!
Would love to collaborate on something together. We share an interest in reading the BOM and in the literary approach. Let me know if you’d be interested in a co-authored project. I teach English at TTU in TN. Thanks.
Random thought here, Scott:
The literary approach to the BoM is a grand good thing. (And the new Maxwell edition of the book might be invaluable for that!)
Still, I feel a lingering caution whispering from the hinterlands to remember what the book is for—to save. The barren landscape of liberal wordcraft has always seen our keystone holy book as just a ball of yarn to toy with and pull apart. A literary approach in isolation can make the book a mere intellectual hobby, and thus just a distraction from what matters most. I feel warmed and reassured by Brad’s demeanor in writing. He is remembering what undergirds that amazing volume.
Cheers, brother!
All well and good, but…
I remember a certain infamous person who made excuses for his abhorrent behavior by stating that, “It depends upon the meaning of ‘it’”.
We could do the same with “go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded”. What does it mean to ‘go’, go where?, go when?, go how far?, do what?, do how much?, do which things?, was that really the Lord telling us what to do or just the quorum president?, was it really a commandment or just a suggestion? The study goes on endlessly.
In the meantime the driveway of the widow across the street remains covered in snow because we are too busy reading and parsing the meanings of “go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded.”
And then look at what good all the rabbinic study of the Talmud did for he children of Israel.
Forrest,
I would opt for a more charitable reading. It is quite possible to both study and practice. It seems the Savior desired both: “seek learning even by study, and also by faith,”(Doctrine and Covenants 109:14). As for the Talmud and the children of Israel, I suspect that there is much more value there than you seem to credit. Since I hope to have been included by adoption in the promises for the house of Israel, I wish for a more charitable reading on the children of Israel as well.
“Rabbi Tarfon and the Elders were reclining in the loft of the house of Nit’za in Lod, when this question was asked of them: Is study greater or is action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: Action is greater. Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Study is greater. Everyone answered and said: Study is greater, but not as an independent value; rather, it is greater as study leads to action” (Kiddushin 40b). I think it can be easily argued that the rabbinic tradition has helped create the most active, generous, accomplished, over-achieving, idealistic, good works oriented people on earth–much as close study of Nephi’s “go and do” statement–reading it literarily in context, in relation to Nephi’s life at that point and later as he attempts to implement it, as well as connecting it to such biblical verses as Exodus 19: 8–has led many Latter-day Saints to do likewise.
I agree with the author that we all should study the Book of Mormon intensely. Too many of us don’t read it often enough, and read it superficially when we do read it.
I do, however, have one concern about searching for what the author calls “hidden messages from God” My concern is that we will seek to be “experts” of the scriptures rather than seek to be more Christlike – the ultimate goal of the reading the scriptures. I knew a man who was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who sought to be “an expert” in the scriptures and even claimed that he was such an expert. Yet he once taught a Sunday School class that God the Father and Jesus Christ were one person as in the apostate version of the godhead known as the trinity. This so-called expert taught this false doctrine because the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus as the Father and despite the fact that one of the great truths taught in Joseph Smith’s First Vision was that God the Father and Jesus Christ were 2 separate personages. Even 8-year old children in our Church know that God the Father and Jesus Christ were 2 separate personages. During the week after this “expert’s” lesson I gave him 2 documents:
1) a First Presidency letter explaining why Jesus is sometimes called the Father: Jesus speaks for and in behalf of the Father; Jesus (under the direction of the Father ) is the Creator; and Jesus spiritually begets us.
2) Church President Joseph Fielding Smith’s article “I Have Every Right to Call Jesus My Father” (because Jesus spiritually begats us).
To the credit of the so-called expert, in the next Sunday School class the expert did admit his mistake.
When we read the scriptures to be experts rather than to learn how to be more Christlike, we are being proud and are thus vulnerable to believing strange, wrong ideas that make us appear as “experts.”
This same “expert” was a single man who at singles dances would read the Book of Mormon. As a result, some women went home depressed because – as they say – “no one asked me to dance.” Do you think that at a dance for singles, the Lord wants that man – and all the men – to read the Book of Mormon or ask ladies to dance?
It has been my experience that persons seeking to be “experts” in the scriptures – rather than seeking how to be more Christlike – often overlook doing the most basic acts of kindness and believe some of the stupidest ideas.
Good cautionary thoughts, Lanny. Perhaps these words from my book apply to what you are saying:
However, for many Talmudic and post-Talmudic rabbis the acquisition of information for practical purposes though vital was still mainly a starting point, a way of getting one’s “sea legs,” as it were, as one begins one’s Torah voyage. Such knowledge was never the final goal. …
They therefore studied Torah ultimately in order to worship God through imitation and, by so doing, to come closer to him—learning more about him and his motivations, growing in love and appreciation for him, and seeing the world, at least partially, through his eyes. As Cohen explains, as the Rabbis saw it, “when the individual is occupied with the words of the Torah, the vehicles of divine expression, he or she experiences God’s presence.” In a very real way, serious Torah students touch the divine.
To be sure, the acquisition of practical instructional information remains important, even vital to such an effort. One cannot connect with God in a deep way without knowing and following his commandments. However, as Neusner explains, at some point “the act of [Torah] study itself becomes holy, so that its original purpose, which was mastery of particular information, ceases to matter much. What matters is piety—piety expressed through the rites of studying.” Readers must eventually turn away from themselves to God; they must ask not simply “What does God want me to do?” but instead “How does God himself act?” or even better “What does God think and feel and how can I be like him?” (Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon, pp. 16-17).
“
Good quote!
“Bradley J. Kramer asserts that ‘the Book of Mormon is simply too much of a book to be approached simply as a source of quotations.’”
For my degree in Religious Studies, my attention was peaked upon learning about the endearing, sophisticated literary tools used by OT writers. The layering of meanings, the purposeful use of subtle repetition, and others. It was eye-opening; I was wowed. It was especially clear when using TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures published by the JPS.
But I feel a caution when reading the above quote, which uses an method I have seen constantly in liberal writers: the insisting on new, fad paradigms as replacements, alleged betterment’s, a supposed higher oder. Kramer lauds the Book of Mormon, then tells us we have been using it wrong. And by the way, his way is the right way.
I am also averse to methods that ‘look beyond the mark.’ “Simply … quotations”? Ideas save. God’s Spirit whispers often in snippets, in quotes. Quotes save. I agree with Brad’s suggestion that there is value in seeing patterns, in seeing contexts and prologues. I object to the needless insistence on minimizing one in undue deference to the other. This is not nitpicking; it is vitally important.
Good comment!
I agree, Glen. Quotations can be powerful. Sorry, if what I wrote seemed to dismiss them entirely. However, I think their power is determined to a large degree by their context.
As I state in my book, the statement “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mosiah 2:17) is a powerful statement. However, its power owe a lot of its force to the fact that it was uttered by a king, someone occupying a position not usually associated with service. The fact then that it is uttered not by just any king but King Benjamin further increases that power since he, as a king, fought for his people, taught his people, and led them doing everything he could to serve them and not be a burden to them.
The power of this statement is also increased by the fact that Benjamin gave this statement at the coronation of his son, Mosiah, and therefore it constituted one of the most precious values he could pass on to the next ruler, and it is increased further by the way Mosiah subsequently served his people and was even willing to give up passing on the honor and glory of the kingship to one of his sons in order to better serve his people by instituting a system of judges.
In fact, I think one of the reasons I think “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” is so powerful is that, although we may not discuss it openly, we all know its context and assume that context whenever he hear or use that statement. I cannot imagine this statement being nearly as powerful if Korihor or Nehor had said it. I mean, Polonius in Hamlet reels of a string of wise sayings, but because neither he nor Laertes is particularly wise or admirable, these statements always come off a bit suspect.
Yes, quotations can save but I suspect that is because of the spiritual and literary context that surrounds them.
Brad, yes, and thanks so much for clarifying. I agree. I want to apologize; sometimes my writing gets a little punchy.
No problem, Glen. You brought up some important points that needed to be clarified. Thanks for letting me do so.
What a remarkable book. I suspect that the influence of the brass plates on the entire Book of Mormon is understudied and underappreciated.
The Book of Mormon grows out of a rich Jewish tradition of prophesying and interpreting prophecy. We should be involved much more in interfaith dialogue with our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Well done.
Thanks, cuz.