It is recorded in Ezra 2:62-63 and Nehemiah 7:64-65 that upon return from the Babylonian captivity, some could not identify their lineage. It is possible that some of those genealogies had been kept on the plates of brass which had been removed to the New World by Lehi. [Zarahemla Research Foundation, Study Book of Mormon, p. 13]
“Laban Hath the Record of the Jews”
Verneil Simmons explains that the reference in 1 Nephi 3:3 is to “the” record of the Jews, not “a” record, though there must have been other copies not on metal. The fact that this history was engraved on metal plates and in part, at least, written in the Egyptian language strongly suggests that these brass plates could be the original book begun by Moses. If so, it is possible that the record had finally become an object of veneration, not of use. [Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies, p. 72]
Perhaps just like the responsibilities of Nephi, part of Moses’ goals in returning to Egypt involved retrieving a record of Joseph (the plates of brass?). [Alan C. Miner, Personal Notes] [See the commentary on Mosiah 1:4; see also 2 Nephi 3:12]
“Laban”
According to an article by Gordon C. Thomasson, in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, Laban is a scheming kinsman who denies relatives property that is rightfully theirs, causes them to flee from his presence, exploits their resources, mounts punitive expeditions against them, and finally must be overcome, by almost any means. This might be an instance of metonymic naming. Metonymy or metonymic naming involves “naming by association,” a metophoric process of linking two concepts or persons together in such a way as to tell us more about the latter by means of what we already know about the former… . For example, while David was in flight, he sought food from a man the biblical text names as Nabal, (which means “fool”). It stretches credibility to believe that a man, as an affluent adult Israelite, would carry with him the name of Mr. Fool. But that is his name, according to the text, and his actions are indeed foolish--refusing food to the anointed king and consistently successful warrior, David (1 Samuel 25:25). Nabal is, I believe, a clear example of inspired editorial, after-the-fact metonymic naming in the Old Testament… . It is also worthy of note, as John Tvedtnes has mentioned, that Laban is Nabal backwards, and that such word-plays … are typical of Hebrew naming. [Gordon C. Thomasson, “What’s in a Name? Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Spring 1994, F.A.R.M.S., p. 15]
“Laban”
Verneil Simmons explains that “Laban” (1 Nephi 3:3) was apparently well known to Lehi and his family as an official in Jerusalem. He is described later by Nephi as a military man, in possible command of “tens of thousands” (1 Nephi 4:1). He could well have been chief over all the armies of Judah, as well as commander of the “fifty” which guarded Jerusalem. Judah’s military forces were organized into “thousands,” “hundreds,” “fifties,” and “tens,” according to writers of the biblical record (I Samuel 10:19, II Chronicles 25:5, II Kings 1:9)… . If Laban was the commander in charge of the royal guard and the defense of Jerusalem, then he was a man of much importance and his lodging would have been close to the palace, or a part of it, and near the Temple. When Nephi spoke of the “treasury” of Laban (1 Nephi 4:20) he was probably telling us that Laban was the person responsible for the guarding of the treasury of the king. Private citizens did not maintain a treasury. Such rooms were attached to the palace and to the Temple, where official documents were stored, along with the wealth of gold, silver, and bronze vessels, precious stones, and other riches. A royal officer was in charge of these possessions of the king. Many such rooms have been excavated in the ancient cities of the Near East (See Interpreters’s Dictionary of the Bible, Treasury c. royal, p. 694. A steward could be the overseer of the treasury. (See Ezra 5:17 regarding the king’s treasure house). [Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies, p. 67] [See the commentary on 2 Nephi 3:12]
“Laban Hath the Record of the Jews”
According to Verneil Simmons, when the ark was removed from the tent where David had housed it and placed in the innermost room of the new and splendid “house of the Lord,” it was written that there was nothing in the Ark except the two stone tablets. The book of the law or covenant, written by Moses, was no longer there (I Kings 8:9).
In 1896, an ancient scroll was found in a synagogue in Old Cairo, Egypt. It consisted of portions of two separate manuscripts, one of some eight pages and another of only one page. They were translated and published in 1910 under the title The Damascus Document. It was recognized even then that this must have been a copy of writings made centuries before by a group of Zadokite Jews living in Damascus. These fragments date from about the tenth to twelfth century. Not much was done with the scroll until the discovery of the Qumran or Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the writings of the Qumran community were several fragments from the Damascus Document. (Thus its age was confirmed. The original had been written before the birth of Christ.)
An interesting story is told in this scroll, as published by the French writer A. Dupont-Sommer. The translation is his:
As for David, he did not read the sealed book of the law which was in the ark [of the covenant]. For it was not opened in Israel from the day that Eleazar and Joshua and the Elders died, when [the children of Israel] began to serve Ashtoreth; and it remained hidden [and] was [not] revealed until the coming of Zadok.
The author adds this comment:
After the death of Joshua and Eleazar and the Elders of their generation, the children of Israel abandoned Yahweh to serve Baal and Astarte [Ashtoreth] (Joshua 24:29-31; Judges 2:7-10, 13). During the time of apostasy, the “sealed book of the Law” remained hidden “until the coming of Zadok.” This Zadok seems to be the priest Zadok who lived in the time of David. It was he who, supplanting the priest Abiathar, anointed Solomon just before David’s death. According to the present passage, this Zadok made known again the authentic text of the Law; this praise of his rule is an interesting feature.
If the scroll of the Damascus Document is correct, then that book had been removed in the days of Zadok and its contents made known. It is interesting that David referred to Zadok as a seer (II Samuel 15:27).
If Zadok did remove a book from the Ark before it was carried into the Holy of Holies in the new Temple, and if the book was the record later known as the Brass Plates, then to whom was it given? We find a possible answer in II Samuel 8:16. In the account dealing with David’s organization of the kingdom, we find the name of the recorder (in charge of the royal chronicles and annals) mentioned in the same verse with the name of the commander of the “host” or army.
The recorder was a royal officer with a high position at the royal court; even that of an adviser to the king. Both he and the commander of the “host” were attached to the palace and probably housed in or near it. Certainly the historian of the acts of the king had to be closely associated with the commander of the armies, since all the kings of Judah and Israel were constantly embroiled in petty wars or raids on their neighbors.
Was this custom still in force in the days of Laban? It would appear so. We find Laban commanding the armies and also acting as guardian of the record which is in the treasury (1 Nephi 3). The recorder being a court officer strengthens the idea that the record was actually in the palace treasury. The evidence is inconclusive but it does suggest a route by which the record of Moses could have reached the care of Laban. [Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies, pp. 248-250] [See the commentary on 2 Nephi 3:12]
“For Behold Laban Hath…”
In 1 Nephi 3:2-3 we find:
And it came to pass that [Lehi] spake unto [Nephi] saying: Behold I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.
For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of thy forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.
Some might think that the term “Jews” only refers to those of the tribe of Judah, however by the time of Lehi and Nephi, the Northern Kingdom had fallen and, according to modern research, some remnants of those ten tribes had fled to the Southern Kingdom, settling in and around Jerusalem as “Jews.” Some also might mistakenly assume that the phrase “record of the Jews” could only mean a record which was but a partial rendering of what has come to be the Old Testament, however both the Book of Mormon and modern research speak to the contrary.
In a vision concerning the coming forth of the Bible, Nephi notes that an angel said to him concerning the Bible that, “it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many” (1 Nephi 3:23, emphasis added). That is, the brass plates contained much more text than the present Old Testament.
Additionally, according to John Sorenson, one of the notable intellectual activities of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has been the development of the view that the Old Testament was a composite of ancient documents of varied age and source. But while the view that the Old Testament did not derive from a single original source seemed to hold up over time, the scholars found that many of their early conclusions about the evolution of such sources were untenable. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the ancient sources of the Old Testament were far more complex than was allowed in the evolutionism of the older critics. In the words of H. D. Hummel:
In all likelihood, the original tradition was richer than any of its three major later derivatives (the Septuagint, Samaritan and Masoretic texts) … it now seems likely that [our present] text has suffered more from losses than from glosses.
In a review of Sorenson’s article (see Grant, “The Brass Plates and Their Prophets”) Richard Grant notes that according to the current scholarly view, the Old Testament in its present form is considered to be drawn from the work of four major strands or traditions of Hebrew narration, each with its own agenda. These are identified as the Jehovist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomists, and the Priestly writers, usually referred to by the shorthand, J, E, D, and P. Briefly, these traditions each represent a different view of Hebrew history, each written to achieve a specific objective of the author or authors.
1. The Jehovist: referred to God as Jehovah. This was predominantly of Judah, declaring the divine authority of the King, the temple, and the priesthood.
2. The Elohist: referred to God as Elohim. This history emphasized the role of the individual rather than the priest. Its heroes were Jacob and Joseph.
3. The Deuteronomists: This is believed to be the book claimed to be “found” in the temple by the priests of Josiah. It’s believed to have been written by these priests or perhaps by Jeremiah, to reinforce the teachings of the prophets of that today. But the influence and editing extended far beyond the Book of Deuteronomy.
4. The Priestly writers: Written during the Babylonian captivity to give the captives a strong sense of unique identity. “They did it primarily by asserting the power of the religious tradition of the Jews over the total life of the people. In the process they also edited and rewrite massive parts of their sacred history.”
Sorenson notes that the preferences in deity names between J and E sources have been demonstrated to be consistent and significant, not mere literary quirks. They reflect different traditions transmitted through regionally distinct “schools” of scribes which existed form the tenth century onward. E source was fundamentally a Northern Kingdom expression. Albright noted that differences between J and E already existed in the Pentateuchal poems dating between Exodus and the Monarchy, thus the later “schools” and a prior basis. Cassuto’s observation also may be related. He noted that in Old Testament situations where God is represented as a universal or international deity, rather than as God of Israel, an El name occurs. For example, in all the sections of Genesis pertaining to Egypt, including the entire story of Joseph, El names are used exclusively. Note also should be taken that D&C 84:6-13 asserts a line of priesthood and sacred knowledge persisted in the desert from the time of Esaias, a contemporary and associate of Abraham, at least until Moses and Jethro [Moses’ father-in-law who lived at Midian, which was the region by the shores of the Red Sea to which Lehi fled (the Valley of Lemuel) and to which the camp of Israel went after crossing the Red Sea]. Jethro is an E name, in contrast to J’s Hobab; of course Jethro‘s father was Reu’El.
Details not mentioned above further evidence possible E effects on the Book of Mormon, either through the brass plates or through the family tradition in which Lehi was reared:
(1) The Book of Mormon virtually ignores the Davidic covenant, which is a J element. David is mentioned but six times (twice only incidentally in quotations from Isaiah). Two instances involved strong condemnation of David. (see Jacob 1:15, 2:23-24, 31-33)
(2) Instead, considerable attention is paid to the Abrahamic covenant and to the patriarchs. All 29 references to Abraham are laudatory. Jacob is also so named, a positive E characteristic, whereas J uses “Israel” as his personal name. (On the covenant with Abraham, see 1 Nephi 15:18, 17:40; 2 Nephi 29:14.)
(3) The Jews, particularly the inhabitants of Jerusalem, are branded as evil in the strongest terms. (For example, 1 Nephi 1:19, 17:42-44.)
(4) Emphasis is placed on Joseph being sold into Egypt, his saving Jacob’s house, and the Lord’s special covenant with Joseph which is not attested in the Old Testament (1 Nephi 5:14-15, 17-40; 2 Nephi 3:4-5, 9-10, 16-17; 4:1-3; 10:3). The coat of Joseph is a topic specific to E on which the Book of Mormon adds data not found in the Jewish version (J).
(5) The name “Jehovah” (Yahweh), the preferred J title of deity, occurs only twice in the Book of Mormon (once a quote from Isaiah 12--with one word changed--and again in the very last sentence in the volume). The name “Lord” is usually used for divinity in the Book of Mormon (almost 1400 times).
(6) Unmistakable El (E source) names do occur in the Book of Mormon, notably “Most High God” (Hebrew “El Elyon”) and “Almighty God” (the Septuagint’s term for “El Shaddai”), the former six times and the latter eleven.
In addition to these points, other characteristics of E of more generic nature are found in the Book of Mormon. [John L. Sorenson, “The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” in Nephite Culture and Society, pp. 26-39; see also Richard G. Grant, “The Brass Plates and Their Prophets,” [http://www.cometozarahemla.org/brassplates/brass-plates.html]] [For further information on the brass plates, see the commentaries on 1 Nephi 5:11, 5:16, 13:23, 19:22; 2 Nephi 2:17, 2:25, 3:18-19; Mosiah 1:3-4; Alma 37:4-5; 3 Nephi 10:16; Moroni 10:34]