BOM 1 Nephi 6

We’re discussing a very short chapter today:  1 Nephi 6.

It’s brief, but it makes an important point:  The Book of Mormon is not, and was never intended to be, a comprehensive history of the Nephites (let alone of the Lamanites, for whom it really provides no systematic history at all).  Details of secular history appear in the Book of Mormon, of course, but, to a very large degree, only to the extent that they’re necessary in order to set the stage for the book’s spiritual and religious messages.  In other words, it wasn’t composed in the manner of a modern, academic, secular historical treatise.

This is true of the four New Testament gospels, as well.  They say little or nothing about Jesus’ life between his birth and the commencement of his teaching ministry — a gap that has long frustrated authors of “Lives of Jesus” and that, almost from the beginning, led ancient authors to create “infancy gospels,” speculations about Jesus’ years in India, and portrayals of the young miracle-worker that, while intended to impress us with his divine power, leave us today somewhat horrified at his resemblance to Damien and The Omen.  They say nothing about Jesus’ education, his early job history, his appearance, or any number of other things that a modern biographer would love to know.

They are, to put it another way, very disciplined and purposeful in going about their self-imposed task:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book,” says the Gospel of John (20:30-31) in words that could easily be applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well.  “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is very perceptive in entitling the four New Testament gospels “The Testimony of,” respectively, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  I’m pleased, as well, that my longtime friend and former BYU and FARMS colleague S. Kent Brown has titled his long-awaited New Testament commentary The Testimony of Luke.

This seems to me exactly right.

Nephi isn’t saying, and John isn’t saying, that they don’t believe themselves to be relating historical facts.  But neither of them is driven by mere antiquarian curiosity, or a simple desire to tell us what happened just for the sake of telling us what happened.