To read more from The Interpreter Foundation, CLICK HERE.
The more you think about it, the more remarkable it is that Nephi ended up leading the Nephites. It goes against standard practice in ancient family and political leadership, where the eldest son almost always took the reins of power. But of course, history is full of exceptions, and Nephi could be considered an “irregular king” in a similar vein as King David, and to be considered legitimate, those kings needed a good explanation for why they were the ones ruling. Noel Hudson takes a close look at these issues in a new article from The Interpreter Foundation entitled “Irregular Kings and Precious Things: Viewing Nephi and Joseph Smith through the Lens of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship,” and he draws some surprising parallels between Nephi and Joseph Smith.
The Takeaway
Hudson expands on the idea that Nephi wrote in part to strengthen his own legitimacy as ruler of the Nephites, based on common legitimization strategies in the Ancient Near East. He also theorizes that Joseph Smith was set up to inherit this kingly legitimacy through connections to Joseph of Egypt and his obtaining of royal artifacts.
The Summary
In this article, Noel Hudson advances the commonly proposed idea—that (as phrased by Noel Reynolds) “Nephi carefully structured his writings to convince his own and later generations that the Lord had selected him over his elder brothers to be Lehi’s political and spiritual successor.” These concerns speak to Nephi’s political legitimacy, an important issue within Ancient Near East cultures. Those who did not assume already-established royal power (which customarily went to the eldest sons of monarchs) had to find a way to demonstrate their royal legitimacy, which was generally a matter of showing that one was chosen by God to lead. Hudson argues that Nephi was one such “irregular king”, and, in the process, suggests that Joseph Smith had similar legitimacy conferred upon him in the course of his prophetic role.
Irregular kings (such as King David, among others) employed a number of strategies to substantiate their claims, including the possession of royal artifacts and the construction of temples that served as concrete symbols of a candidate’s legitimacy and divine favor. And when examined closely, Nephi’s writings highlight many of those strategies, which served to counter the claims of his older brothers and helped thwart the ambitions of future generations of potential usurpers. They include:
- Divine election. Nephi cites explicit promises from God that he would rule over his brethren.
- Royal prerogative. Lehi is recorded as telling Laman and Lemuel to “rebel no more” against Nephi.
- Popular acclamation. Nephi is pressed into service as king as the behest of his own people.
- Military success. Nephi is portrayed as achieving military victories over the Lamanites, and is looked to as a “king or a protector”.
- The unworthy predecessor. There are hints to Zedekiah as an unworthy predecessor of Israelite kingship.
- The unworthy rival. The are many examples where Nephi paints Laman and Lemuel in a poor light.
- Passivity. Nephi implies that he did not seek for the throne and only accepted it hesitantly.
- Transcendent non-retaliation. Nephi shows his worthiness as a leader by forgiving his brothers after they attempted to kill him.
- The merciful victor. After Laman and Lemuel submit to Nephi, Nephi avoids their worship and points them to the worship of God and the veneration of Lehi.
- The younger brother. Nephi is presented as an “archetypal younger brother” who quickly assumes the mantle of leadership from unworthy older rivals.
- Literary themes of legitimacy. Nephi cites imagery related to enthronement in Isaiah 52, wherein Judah arises from the dust to ascend to a royal throne.
- Artifacts of kingship. Nephi possesses symbols of royal power in the sword of Laban, the Liahona, and the brass plates.
- Divine responsibilities. Like other ancient kings, Nephi quickly moves to construct a temple and continues his role as a prophetic and priestly leader, utilizing the same gifts of prophecy and seership present in the royal line of Joseph of Egypt.
Hudson argues that many of these same elements are also present with Joseph Smith, drawing the connections made in the Book of Mormon between him and Joseph of Egypt, Joseph’s legacy of divine power and responsibility, his restoration of the temple, and his possession of many of the same royal artifacts as Nephi, as well as the Urim and Thummim. His popular acclaim as leader is evident (see D&C 135, and though he was never proclaimed as a literal king, his divinely oriented legitimacy has been inherited within the hierarchical structure of the church, serving as a restraint on the unjust use of authority by modern leaders.
As Hudson concludes:
“Drawing upon comparative material from the Ancient Near East, this article identifies a shared cultural logic underlying ancient apologetics of kingship. It argues that the Book of Mormon intentionally adopts this framework in its portrayal of Nephi—and, by prophetic extension, of Joseph Smith—both having been divinely sanctioned leaders… Book of Mormon prophets foresaw and, if my theory is correct, intentionally situated the future prophet of the Restoration within this same legitimating paradigm… Nephi and Joseph Smith emerge as participants in a single theological tradition of irregular kingship—leaders raised up by divine mandate rather than by inheritance or popular election.”
The Reflection
It doesn’t take more than a few read-throughs of 1 and 2 Nephi to pick up on Nephi’s (likely well-justified) defense of his own rule. Given that his rule may have involved the incorporation of indigenous tribes, I suspect building that legitimacy may have been even more important. Either way, Nephi’s subtle rhetoric—using strategies that align so well with ancient traditions—strikes me as too subtle and too authentic to have come from a spurt of creative writing.
The idea that Joseph is an heir to that legitimacy is intriguing as well. Those legitimizing strategies would’ve meant little to his contemporaries, but they likely would have mattered to Moroni and those that came before him. We sometimes see pushback from critics as to why God would entrust a callow youth with the Restoration, but I wonder if Nephi or Alma or Mormon would’ve felt similarly, absent those royal accoutrements. What it might do for us, on the other hand, is help us appreciate the meaning and heft in those symbolic trappings, and recognize his legitimacy as a prophet, despite his faults and foibles.
This post is Kyler Rasmussen’s summary of the article “Irregular Kings and Precious Things: Viewing Nephi and Joseph Smith through the Lens of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship” by Noel Hudson in Volume 67 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. All of Kyler Rasmussen’s Interpreting Interpreter articles may be seen at https://interpreterfoundation.org/category/summaries/. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https:/interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.
A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https://youtube.com/shorts/P7CXJXViRpc.
