The most obviously spectacular part of this story is Nephi’s effectual prayer, resulting in his ability to burst the bands. From our perspective, the event seems miraculous. However, in the context of the moment, it was not considered particularly remarkable. Nephi has described himself as physically large and strong. Laman and Lemuel may have seen his release as nothing more than a demonstration of Nephi’s strength or their own ineptitude in tying knots. They are certainly not awed into cooperation by it.
Rather, in a fascinating dynamic, it is members of Ishmael’s family who prevail on them to abandon their deadly designs. Ishmael and his family have newly joined the party and have not yet reached Lehi’s camp (1 Ne. 7:21–22). However they had been convinced to come on this journey, it must have been singularly difficult to find themselves immediately in a violent intra-family dispute. That they not only mediated this altercation but continued on the journey speaks volumes about the strength of the witness they received from Yahweh to make the journey (1 Ne. 7:5).
History: The pleading of the women is an important aspect of this scene. Laman and Lemuel are angry, assuming their right to defend their birthright, even against their own brother. Their honor has also been assaulted by Nephi’s rebuke. How and why could they back down? Nibley explains:
The mother and one of the daughters pleaded with them. This is a thing that no Arab under any circumstance can resist. If a mother or daughter from another tribe pleads, you are under obligation—even if it is your worst enemy. It’s the chivalric oath. The rules of chivalry in the Middle Ages were adopted during the Crusades and taken back [to Europe] in the time of Edward I. They were taken from the Arabs.
It is therefore highly significant that it is the mother and daughter in Ishmael’s family who plead for Nephi. We have the precise situation of a mother and daughters of a different tribe that Nibley specified: Ephraim for Ishmael and Mannasseh for Lehi.
Nyman offers an equally interesting perspective:
There were five single daughters of Ishmael, and four sons of Lehi, plus Zoram, the servant of Laban who had joined them. Their purpose in returning to Jerusalem to get Ishmael’s family was to get wives to raise up seed unto the Lord (vv. 1–2). Had one of Ishmael’s daughters and her mother counted the eligible bachelors, and realized there would be one short if Nephi’s life was taken? This seems to be more a probability than a possibility.
This suggestion may give us the reason why the mother and daughters pleaded, and Nibley’s suggestion tells us how Laman and Lemuel were able to accede without losing honor.
Translation/Variant: Verse 17 contains an unusual variant from the original manuscript. The verse originally read: “… according to my faith which is in me.” Grammatically, the statement is garbled, since it has Nephi telling Yahweh that Nephi has faith in Nephi. The correction made in the second edition changes this word to “thee,” clearly the original intent. Apparently the scribe (anonymous, not Oliver) misheard “me” for “thee,” doubtless being predisposed to the mishearing because the sentence also contains “my.” This reconstruction of the error, however, tells us that the scribe was simply transcribing, not interpreting the dictation. Had he been processing this sentence’s meaning instead of merely writing down the words, he would not have made such an obvious error. The scribe’s lack of participation in the meaning of the text is an important datum for any reconstruction of the translation process. When the data suggest that there may have been some participation by the translator or copyist, we may with some confidence ascribe such participation to Joseph rather than the scribe. This is, of course, precisely where we would expect any interaction—between text and translator. Since a scribe was present and was at least potentially capable of processing and editing the text, it is important to be able to exclude him as part of the actual translation process.