Culture: Nephi’s parents were reared in Old World culture, steeped in its understandings. Nephi’s early education and the formation of his character also took place in the Old World. The peoples of ancient Mediterranean cultures viewed themselves differently than modern Western Europeans and Americans, perhaps the most important being the lack of strong individuation. Bruce J. Malina, professor of theology at Creighton University, and Jerome H. Neyrey, professor of New Testament studies at Notre Dame, describe what they call the “collectivist” personality of ancient Mediterranean peoples:
Thanks to their in-group enculturation, they were used to assessing themselves and others in terms of stereotypes often explained as deriving from family “history” and the geographical location of their group. Furthermore, because these persons were strongly embedded in groups, their behavior was controlled by strong social inhibitions along with a general lack of personal inhibition. Their prevailing social institution was kinship. Familism, belief in the central role and value of the “household,” was foremost in people’s minds.
As they stress, a person was defined by his family. Thus, when Nephi says he is born of “goodly parents” he is defining himself. Malina and Neyrey remind us: “If the ancestors were distinguished in virtue, they should be expected to breed virtue. Plato stated it clearly: ‘They were good because they sprang from good fathers.’”
Redaction: Hugh Nibley first identified 1 Nephi 1:1–3 as a colophon, a structured and typical passage used at the beginning or end of many ancient documents. Some of the elements Nibley describes for one type of colophon are the writer’s name, the writer’s lineage, and sometimes an affirmation of the written text’s trustworthiness. Nephi’s introduction certainly meets these criteria.
John A. Tvedtnes has extended Nibley’s research by suggesting that Alma, Helaman, and 3 and 4 Nephi all begin with formal introductions. He is correct, but these introductions are not the same type of colophon as we find in 1 Nephi, nor should they be, because Mormon is the redactor (or writer/abridger) of all those texts. The colophon that marks the author of the work is not appropriate in Mormon’s abridged texts.
The Book of Mormon does, however, contain other identifying colophons, notably for the books from Nephi through the end of Omni. Jacob’s personal introduction is perhaps the least formal and differs most from the structure of a colophon. At Mosiah, however, the personal introductions cease and are replaced, typically, by a chronological introduction. The interesting exception is Zeniff’s record, which Mormon copied as a separate source into the book of Mosiah.
A distinction can be made between the personalized introductions that appear from 1 Nephi through Omni, and the introductions to all of the books that follow. The small plates were written in the first person, and the large plates were abridged. Scribes probably wrote the material on the plates from which Mormon took his material, noting the deeds of another person. In such a situation, a colophon is not appropriate. The two main divisions of the Book of Mormon (small and large plates) are clearly different and therefore obey the rules of their own literary genres.
Literature: Is there a possibility that “goodly” is a play on words? Matthew L. Bowen noticed an interesting correlation between the plausible etymology of “Nephi” as a personal name and this description of “goodly” parents:
A proposed etymology of the Book of Mormon name Nephi is that it derives from ancient Egyptian word nfr which as an adjective means “good,” “fine,” or “goodly” and as a noun denotes “kindness” or “goodness.” By Lehi’s time, this word was probably pronounced “nefe” (NEH-fee).… Nephi’s use of words that translate into English as “goodly” and “goodness” makes this passage even more beautiful and meaningful if we also understand the name Nephi to denote “goodly,” or “goodness.” The wordplay perhaps suggests why the name Nephi so befits its bearer: he is nf, or “goodly,” because he was born of “goodly parents” and is one endowed with a “knowledge of the goodness and mysteries of God.”
Remembering Malina and Neyrey’s definition of the collectivist personality’s relationship to the character of the parents, this is a possible reading.