I am currently reading a book called "Misreading scripture with western eyes". It shows how we often misunderstand scripture because we read it through the lens of our culture which is very different from the culture of those who wrote it. The authors are Christian but not LDS so I am interested to see how this also might apply to the Book of Mormon. One chapter discusses the modern western individualist culture versus the eastern collectivist culture.
Here are a few examples from the Bible that I have never considered: The Christmas story has been Westernized. We imagine (and illustrate in paintings and school plays) Joseph and Mary and possibly a donkey trudging alone up to Jerusalem in the quiet of the night. This is very unlikely. A passage from the book explains:
Since we know from prophecy that Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem, we don’t ask the obvious question: why in the world would a guy drag his pregnant wife across the country? We assume the Romans must have required it (within the will of God, of course). Sure, the Romans required a census, but they allowed a large window of time for people to register. It wasn’t in Rome’s best interest to suddenly require everyone in the empire to travel to their ancestral homeland during one weekend. It seems clear in the text that Mary and Joseph were traveling during festival time—that’s why all the inns were full. Bethlehem was what we might call a bedroom community, or suburb, for Jerusalem. Joseph, unlike many Galileans, was apparently a regular attender of Judean festivals. This might explain why Joseph wanted to visit Jerusalem when he did. But why take Mary when she was “great with child”? It wasn’t ignorance; ancients knew how to count to nine. The reason is simple: if Joseph was of the lineage of David, then so were all his relatives. So were all of Mary’s relatives. Moreover, in antiquity one’s relatives were the birthing crew. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem when they did because everybody else was going.
This goes without saying for the gospel writers. In the modern West, we emphasize each individual being of equal importance. It is not obvious to us that a lot of people who are not mentioned in the story are also there. Another example is Paul's letter-writing. A passage from the book states:
Ancient letter-writing was different in just about every way. Ancients had no writing desks. Authors commonly stood and dictated while a scribe sat with a sheet of parchment balanced on his knee or in his lap. Paul would not have locked himself away in some private room to write. (It would have been too dark anyway.) He more likely would have sat in a public place: the breezy, well-lit atrium of a prosperous home like Lydia’s, or in an upstairs balconied apartment. Family and friends walking by would have stopped to listen (ancients read out loud) and to offer advice (it shows you care).
These are interesting perspectives that make sense only when I better understand the cultural differences. I have been thinking of similar examples in the Book of Mormon where people are not as alone as we think they are when we (mis)read it through modern western eyes. Take the sons of Mosiah who went to preach to the Lamanites. Were there four people making the journey to the Lamanites, preaching the gospel there for 14 years? We know it wasn't. It is not emphasized much in the text but there were definitely more:
And thus they departed into the wilderness with their numbers which they had , to go up to the land of Nephi, to preach the word of God unto the Lamanites. (Alma 17:8)
We even get two of their names in Alma 20:2, Ammah and Muloki. So this is not a very obscure fact, on a close reading we understand that there probably was a sizeable group going up to the Lamanites. But it is mentioned only in passing, focusing on certain characters, just like the Christmas story for obvious reasons focuses on Mary and Joseph and not all their relatives. So we should not be surprised if people who are not central to the story sometimes are not mentioned at all. I think this might be the case with the Lehite exodus. Once Nephi mentions in passing that he has sisters (See 2 Nephi 5:6). It is not obvious that he made a conscious effort to inform the reader about that detail, probably because he did not really think it was too important. Informing about family matters was not the point of his writings unless it served the purpose of teaching the reader about God's ways, which is illustrated in the conflicts with his brothers.
Learning about a typical Jewish household in Lehi's time, it is reasonable to assume that there were many more people journeying to the promised land than the ones we know by name from the Book of Mormon. These households would usually consist of three generations. We know from 1 Nephi 7 when they get Ishmael and his houshold that he had two sons who also had families. They were all part of the same household. (See 1 Nephi 7:5-6). In addition, an ancient Jewish household would include debt servants, slaves, concubines, resident aliens, sojourners, day laborers and orphans. Even though I think we may safely assume that Lehi had no concubines, I find it likely that he had servants and maids. This was not frowned upon in ancient Israel like it is in the modern West, as even the Bible clearly shows. Besides, Lehi was definitely rich, something that would increase the size of his household.
When the Lord spoke to Lehi in a dream and told him to flee Jerusalem and travel into the wilderness to a promised land, I find it likely that he brought everyone along. This was probably something that went without saying for Nephi, but it is not obvious to us before we learn more about ancient Israelite culture.
There is no spiritual lesson or gospel principles hidden in this, just an interesting tidbit. But it might be part of the explanation for how the Nephites seem to have become so many so fast (like having wars with the Lamanites while Nephi was still alive).
