In terms of basic outline, Townsend's thesis is comprised of four main blocks. The first 30+ pages discusses methodology, the next ~40 pages addresses past publications that are relevant to Book of Mormon/Biblical literary studies, the next ~30 pages employs his methodological approach to the Yahwist (J) source in the Book of Mormon, and the remaining 60+ pages investigates a portion of the J source in more depth in the Book of Mormon and other relevant non-Biblical literature. The thesis' Abstract discusses this general outline and (somewhat surprisingly) introduces elements of scope into the thesis beyond the title. Based on the title, I'd expect to see a study of the Book of Mormon's (BM) quotations and allusions of the J source (via the Brass Plates), and a demonstration of the influence of the theological perspectives of the J source in the BM (or an explanation of why they are absent):
The Abstract asserts that the intent of the thesis is to "identify the full range of influence of the J source of the Pentateuch on the text of the BM," however, the study actually limits its identification of influence to quotations, allusions, and echoes of J source text within the BM. While the author does delve into BM exegesis upon these texts, the thesis doesn't address anthropomorphism, southern kingdom leanings, or other type of Yahwist perspectives that might (or might not) be detected in the BM. This leaves the reader to speculate (to some degree) as to the scope of influence that the author perceives J as having played in influencing the BM. First, does Townsend believe that the traditional characteristics of J are still an appropriate measure of the Yahwist paradigm? If not, what differences should be considered? Second, does he believe that these characteristics are present or absent in the BM? Third, how does he reconcile the presence of other documentary influences (E, D, and P) with J's influence in the BM? Fourth, perhaps he is wholly unconcerned with the Yahwist theological paradigm and its potential influence upon the Lehite and Mulekite cultures? Fifth, is he strictly concerned with the utilization of J source texts in the BM? While the reader must speculate as to the first four questions, the fifth question seems implicitly answered in the affirmative within the thesis, thus relegating the other four questions.
A brief discussion of these other questions seems warranted, however, since the premise clearly asserted that the "full range of the J source" would be identified. This is especially relevant since, "phrases, ideas, motifs, and characters" associated with J were intended to be addressed. While this assertion finds some fruition in the last section of his thesis (dealing with Gen 2-4 in the BM), it certainly isn't the potential "full range" of Yawhist influence. It can also be argued that this last section represents Nephite exegesis, or perhaps a midrash, upon inherited J material,1 rather than an influence of Yahwist theology and perspective upon Nephite culture; this difference may be subtle, but it is important, especially as it relates to the assertions posited for the thesis. One of the benefits of John Sorenson's study of the Elohistic (E) influence upon the BM is that he shows a number of characteristics present (or absent) in the BM that align with E perspectives.2 It is beyond the scope of this review to delve into Sorenson's work, but it is surprising that Townsend highlights authors who he believes, "are the most important thinkers and commentators on the question of the KJV in the BM," which he limits to those "who have either been the first to note important aspects of the question or those who have done much to further the popularity of the issue or push research forward," (37) but neglects to include Sorenson in this consideration. An approach similar in nature to Sorenson's study of the Elohist influence in the BM would have added important value to this thesis.
The fact that Sorenson is excluded in Townsend's list of important contributors who have pushed BM/Biblical research forward is telling. The Abstract informs the reader that the author isn't particularly concerned with the broader topic of the J source's influence in the BM generally, so much as he is interested in seeing the J source in the BM as it is presented in the KJV. This scope qualification alerts the reader that another motive underlies the objective of this thesis, and potentially ties into why the first four of the five questions posed above aren't addressed. "The BM employs a thoroughly 19th century American-Christian worldview in both its use of the J source and its interpretation of that important text." This is an important topic that we'll return to in subsequent posts, but in combination with the utilization of J source texts in KJV verbiage, we discover (and learn throughout the thesis) that there is a more prominent objective in this thesis than just looking at the J source in the BM, and that is regarding the compositional influence that the KJV plays in the formation of the BM text. Presumably, that is why Sorenson is left out of his list of influential contributors. Sorenson's paper would seem to have the most relevance to the topic of this thesis than any other LDS contribution, but is conspicuously left out because Sorenson's efforts were to identify the influence of the E source in the BM, rather than KJV language in the BM. In this regard, I would suggest that the title of Townsend's thesis is partially misleading.
If my assessment of this thesis was speculative up until now, it is verified by the Abstract when the claim is made that future BM studies will need to "grapple with the heavy influence that the KJV had on the composition of the BM." His real purpose here is to identify KJV language used in the BM, as illustrated by the J source (and other portions of the Bible - which we'll revisit later). I agree that the KJV verbiage did influence the composition of the BM, although I believe there are more variables at play than the author entertains, but that is a topic for another post. He notes that past studies have limited their efforts in comparing the full range of KJV texts with the BM and that this study attempts to serve as a stepping-stone in moving this discussion forward. Undoubtedly, Townsend will be successful in this regard. His efforts here are unparalleled and deserve to be noticed and engaged so as to move this field of BM studies forward. His efforts, as we'll explore, provide a tremendous opportunity to engage the BM text in numerous ways where the surface has merely been scratched in times past.
Note: It should be observed that my criticisms here are not with the actual text of Townsend's thesis (except for his exclusion of John Sorenson as an important contributor), rather, it is with the title of the thesis as well as the asserted scope of the thesis, which promises more than it delivers. The "full range" of Yahwistic influence is not undertaken in this thesis as is claimed in the Abstract.
Quibble: the pagination of the Table of Contents do not always align with the text.
The Abstract asserts that the intent of the thesis is to "identify the full range of influence of the J source of the Pentateuch on the text of the BM," however, the study actually limits its identification of influence to quotations, allusions, and echoes of J source text within the BM. While the author does delve into BM exegesis upon these texts, the thesis doesn't address anthropomorphism, southern kingdom leanings, or other type of Yahwist perspectives that might (or might not) be detected in the BM. This leaves the reader to speculate (to some degree) as to the scope of influence that the author perceives J as having played in influencing the BM. First, does Townsend believe that the traditional characteristics of J are still an appropriate measure of the Yahwist paradigm? If not, what differences should be considered? Second, does he believe that these characteristics are present or absent in the BM? Third, how does he reconcile the presence of other documentary influences (E, D, and P) with J's influence in the BM? Fourth, perhaps he is wholly unconcerned with the Yahwist theological paradigm and its potential influence upon the Lehite and Mulekite cultures? Fifth, is he strictly concerned with the utilization of J source texts in the BM? While the reader must speculate as to the first four questions, the fifth question seems implicitly answered in the affirmative within the thesis, thus relegating the other four questions.
A brief discussion of these other questions seems warranted, however, since the premise clearly asserted that the "full range of the J source" would be identified. This is especially relevant since, "phrases, ideas, motifs, and characters" associated with J were intended to be addressed. While this assertion finds some fruition in the last section of his thesis (dealing with Gen 2-4 in the BM), it certainly isn't the potential "full range" of Yawhist influence. It can also be argued that this last section represents Nephite exegesis, or perhaps a midrash, upon inherited J material,1 rather than an influence of Yahwist theology and perspective upon Nephite culture; this difference may be subtle, but it is important, especially as it relates to the assertions posited for the thesis. One of the benefits of John Sorenson's study of the Elohistic (E) influence upon the BM is that he shows a number of characteristics present (or absent) in the BM that align with E perspectives.2 It is beyond the scope of this review to delve into Sorenson's work, but it is surprising that Townsend highlights authors who he believes, "are the most important thinkers and commentators on the question of the KJV in the BM," which he limits to those "who have either been the first to note important aspects of the question or those who have done much to further the popularity of the issue or push research forward," (37) but neglects to include Sorenson in this consideration. An approach similar in nature to Sorenson's study of the Elohist influence in the BM would have added important value to this thesis.
The fact that Sorenson is excluded in Townsend's list of important contributors who have pushed BM/Biblical research forward is telling. The Abstract informs the reader that the author isn't particularly concerned with the broader topic of the J source's influence in the BM generally, so much as he is interested in seeing the J source in the BM as it is presented in the KJV. This scope qualification alerts the reader that another motive underlies the objective of this thesis, and potentially ties into why the first four of the five questions posed above aren't addressed. "The BM employs a thoroughly 19th century American-Christian worldview in both its use of the J source and its interpretation of that important text." This is an important topic that we'll return to in subsequent posts, but in combination with the utilization of J source texts in KJV verbiage, we discover (and learn throughout the thesis) that there is a more prominent objective in this thesis than just looking at the J source in the BM, and that is regarding the compositional influence that the KJV plays in the formation of the BM text. Presumably, that is why Sorenson is left out of his list of influential contributors. Sorenson's paper would seem to have the most relevance to the topic of this thesis than any other LDS contribution, but is conspicuously left out because Sorenson's efforts were to identify the influence of the E source in the BM, rather than KJV language in the BM. In this regard, I would suggest that the title of Townsend's thesis is partially misleading.
If my assessment of this thesis was speculative up until now, it is verified by the Abstract when the claim is made that future BM studies will need to "grapple with the heavy influence that the KJV had on the composition of the BM." His real purpose here is to identify KJV language used in the BM, as illustrated by the J source (and other portions of the Bible - which we'll revisit later). I agree that the KJV verbiage did influence the composition of the BM, although I believe there are more variables at play than the author entertains, but that is a topic for another post. He notes that past studies have limited their efforts in comparing the full range of KJV texts with the BM and that this study attempts to serve as a stepping-stone in moving this discussion forward. Undoubtedly, Townsend will be successful in this regard. His efforts here are unparalleled and deserve to be noticed and engaged so as to move this field of BM studies forward. His efforts, as we'll explore, provide a tremendous opportunity to engage the BM text in numerous ways where the surface has merely been scratched in times past.
Note: It should be observed that my criticisms here are not with the actual text of Townsend's thesis (except for his exclusion of John Sorenson as an important contributor), rather, it is with the title of the thesis as well as the asserted scope of the thesis, which promises more than it delivers. The "full range" of Yahwistic influence is not undertaken in this thesis as is claimed in the Abstract.
Quibble: the pagination of the Table of Contents do not always align with the text.
_____________________
1 Colby Townsend will argue later in his paper regarding the influence of NT verbiage in the BM in addition to the Yahwist influence; however, this additional argument will be discussed in a subsequent post.
2 John L. Sorenson, "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10/4 (Autumn 1977):34-36
1 Colby Townsend will argue later in his paper regarding the influence of NT verbiage in the BM in addition to the Yahwist influence; however, this additional argument will be discussed in a subsequent post.
2 John L. Sorenson, "The Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10/4 (Autumn 1977):34-36
