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
Colby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: Tim, I'm just reading through your first post (after the introduction) now. As to the first couple of questions, the "full range of the J source" means the full text as identified in Joel Baden's work. The J source didn't have the theological influences on the BoM that you are seeking, and I didn't feel it necessary to take that approach at all from the beginning for several reasons. First, the God of the BoM is Jesus Christ. That's already quite different from the Yahwist. Second, how would I approach that kind of topic without having to delve into the depiction of God in the BoM? I would need to discuss the changes that JS made to the text in the 1837 edition, and still the depiction of God is drastically different from that in the BoM.
The question about the southern kingdom is interesting, but im not sure how necessary that would be given the fact that Nephi and his group lived so much time after the J source was presumably written that they don't seem to care or be aware of those topics as much as modern scholars are today.
Essentially, the way, in my opinion, of getting to _all_ of your questions in the first paragraph is by first identifying the "full range" of influence from the earlier text to the later text. The questions you are asking are outside of my study, and are invited at the end of my study when I say that others should take part II and do similar research.
I'm also confused about what you say about leaving sorenson out of my study. He's there.
Yeah, the more I'm reading this post the more I'm getting the impression that you've misrepresented my study. And the way you're touting Sorenson's study is just that. I engage with his paper throughout my study.
My response:
DeleteI'm glad that Colby has taken interest in my assessment and has offered to clarify a few things. Regarding the "full range of the J source," Colby defines this as the text of the J source (using Joel Baden's identification of J) and the existence of that same text in the Book of Mormon. This is probably nothing to argue over because it is simply a matter of communication and managing expectations. My expectation, based on the title of the thesis and the inclusion of "full range" as to the scope of his thesis was inferred as the influence of J in the Book of Mormon beyond just quotation, allusion, and echo. John Sorenson and Kevin Barney both looked at characteristics of documentary sources in terms of theological and social perspectives and how that influenced the characters and culture within the Book of Mormon. Undoubtedly, this contributed to framing my expectations of the "Appropriation and Adaptation of the J Source in the Book of Mormon."
Regardless of whether the title didn't clearly communicate the scope of the thesis, or whether I'm simply reading too much into the title and extrapolating too much by what "full range" should mean, my comment that, "a demonstration of the influence of the theological perspectives of the J source in the BM (or an explanation of why they are absent)," still identifies a void that would have been an informative contribution to the thesis...see my next comment below.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "The J source didn't have the theological influences on the BoM that you are seeking..."
To clarify, I'm not "seeking" to find Yahwist influence in the Book of Mormon, per se. I was suggesting that the thesis itself should have clarified why or why not the Yahwist had or didn't have influence upon the Book of Mormon (beyond the literal text). However, as Colby notes, this is beyond the scope of his paper. As I mention in the comment above, inclusion of that discussion would have been an informative contribution.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "I didn't feel it necessary to take that approach at all from the beginning for several reasons. First, the God of the BoM is Jesus Christ. That's already quite different from the Yahwist."
This is called eisegesis. This is the pre-conceived notions that influence how somebody reads a text.
Lehi's vision relates that he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne and then One descending out of heaven. There is no textually imposed connection between the two. As the text stands, it is entirely appropriate to identify God and the "One" as two separate beings, with the latter being inferred as Christ. So here is an example that would differentiate who the "God of the BoM" is. But beyond this example, the assertion that Jesus Christ is the God of the Book of Mormon is too generic and superficial. This implies that every Book of Mormon character had the same conception of God and equally interpreted that God as being Jesus Christ. There are 161 scriptures in the BoM that mention "Jesus." Only 30 of those references occur before 3 Nephi and every single one of these occurrences exist directly because of personal revelation (Nephi, Jacob, King Benjamin, Alma, or in the case of Helaman he learned the name directly from his father Alma). There are 323 scriptures in the BoM that refer to Christ, but that can just as easily be explained as Joseph Smith's translation of מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah). Most Book of Mormon characters refer to deity as God or Lord, just as the HB does.
This subject deserves exploration and not just a relegation because a conclusion has been made without any real investigation.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "Second, how would I approach that kind of topic without having to delve into the depiction of God in the BoM? I would need to discuss the changes that JS made to the text in the 1837 edition, and still the depiction of God is drastically different from that in the BoM."
It would certainly have made for an interesting study, but a simple explanation of why this consideration was scoped out and not included in the "full range" of J influence would have been sufficient.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "The question about the southern kingdom is interesting, but im not sure how necessary that would be given the fact that Nephi and his group lived so much time after the J source was presumably written that they don't seem to care or be aware of those topics as much as modern scholars are today."
That would have been an excellent and concise summary of why the topic was excluded, or mentioned for the purposes of encouraging others to take up the topic. We have clarified already that this topic was beyond the scope of the thesis, but I reiterate that this type of comment would have been a positive contribution to the thesis. It would have at least informed the reader that there are other considerations to J influence beyond the text, and that these considerations were scoped out.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "Essentially, the way, in my opinion, of getting to _all_ of your questions in the first paragraph is by first identifying the "full range" of influence from the earlier text to the later text. The questions you are asking are outside of my study, and are invited at the end of my study when I say that others should take part II and do similar research."
Fair enough.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "I'm also confused about what you say about leaving sorenson out of my study. He's there."
Sorenson shows up in fn 281 on pg 80 and in the Bibliography. Please feel free to identify anywhere that I've missed him in your thesis.
My response:
DeleteColby wrote, "Yeah, the more I'm reading this post the more I'm getting the impression that you've misrepresented my study. And the way you're touting Sorenson's study is just that. I engage with his paper throughout my study."
I don't believe that I've misrepresented your study at all. I thought your thesis was going to be about the J source in the Book of Mormon. Your thesis is actually about KJV language dependency in the Book of Mormon, as (primarily) illustrated by the J source. My assumptions about what your thesis would entail (based on the title) was off, but my suggestion that discussing the Yahwist influence beyond the text is, in my opinion, a helpful identification of a void that would have been informative to the reader. You might disagree, and that is ok. Anybody who reads my review should be well aware that this is Tim's personal assessment.
I'm not actually touting Sorenson's paper. I think it has lots of problems. But his treatment, like yours, is a large step forward. My point in bringing up his paper was to identify his *approach* to the Elohist source in the BoM, that I thought would have been a positive and informative contribution in your thesis had you also discussed the "full range" of Yahwist influence.
As I noted above, Sorenson is mentioned once in your paper in a footnote. I've read your thesis and fail to see how you interact with his paper throughout your study. If you want to identify where I am wrong here, please do. If I've failed to recognize that interaction than it should be identified and acknowledged. My suggestion is that even if he wasn't directly investigating KJV language in the BoM, he was investigating E in the BoM, and should have been included in your list of authors who have engaged the Bible with the BoM. Your title, "Appropriation and Adaptation of the J Source in the Book of Mormon," as I previously suggested is partially mistitled, because your concern is less with J in the BoM than it is with KJV in the BoM. This seems to be demonstrated by Sorenson's exclusion from pages 36-74 in particular.
In a comment above, I wrote about the number of times that "Christ" (323) was used in the Book of Mormon as well as "Jesus" (161). Doing a little more exploring here, the word "God" is used in 1,356 verses in the Book of Mormon and "Lord" is used in 1,282 verses. This should demonstrate that there is room for exploration regarding *who* the God of the Book of Mormon is.
DeleteColby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: The title of my thesis isn't misleading, you're focusing on a phrase in my abstract that you've completely misunderstood.
I would say that your title is "partially" misleading because your thesis is more concerned with KJV language in the Book of Mormon than it is with the J Source in the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in the title that suggests to the reader that your focus will be upon KJV language.
DeleteColby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: I am definitely interested in engaging and discussing this.
I just hope that we can engage like we always have, because this post is reminding me more of John Tvedtnes' misrepresentations of Wesley Walters' masters thesis than anything else.
I cannot comment on this. I have not read Tvedtnes' review of Walter's thesis. I'm sorry if you feel that I've misrepresented you, but hopefully my comments above clarify those issues.
DeleteColby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: It doesn't come across as if you read to understand the things I found, but rather to critique. Which is fine, but that means that you're missing the point of the thesis.
My comments thus far have been related to the title of the thesis, the Abstract of the thesis (including the scope of your approach in the thesis), and the exclusion of John Sorenson from your list of authors in pgs 36-74.
DeleteI understand that my limited review thus far has been fairly critical. We haven't gotten to the thesis yet though. I do think your thesis is a tremendous contribution that will move forward the important discussions of Pentateuchal Scholarship and the Book of Mormon, and KJV text in the Book of Mormon. Even if I continue to have disagreements along the way (which I will), my arguments thus far have really only focused upon scope issues beyond your thesis, rather than the actual scope of your thesis.
Colby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: Yes, I've read it [the above post] twice now. You misread "full range" and applied it to something totally different than what I meant in context.
The full range means all of the text of the j source and all of the places of influence that I found in part II.
Based on my comments above, I don't think that responding here as well will contribute to the discussion. Hopefully my comments above clarify why I wrote what I wrote.
DeleteColby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: And your statements about leaving out sorenson misrepresent what I actually do in the thesis.
As per my comments above, If I've failed to properly identify your interactions with Sorenson's paper, please demonstrate where or how that interaction takes place.
DeleteColby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: First, you're making a bigger deal out of him not having a spot there than it is. Second, the way you're describing it in the post I completely leave him out when I don't.
My point in recognizing Sorenson's absence in pgs 36-74 was to illustrate that Colby's thesis was less concerned about documentary sources influencing the Book of Mormon than it was about the KJV influencing the Book of Mormon; hence my comment about the thesis being "partially" mistitled. One would think that Sorenson would have been included with the authors who engaged the connections between the Bible and the BoM because both authors claim to consider a documentary source (J or E) within the Book of Mormon. Sorenson, however, is excluded presumably because his paper doesn't focus upon the KJV text within the Book of Mormon.
DeleteMy concern about Sorenson's paper was only to demonstrate Townsend's primary thesis: the KJV in the BoM, rather than his secondary thesis: the J source in the BoM, which is what the title primarily asserts.
Colby Townsend responded to this post offline in a private chat with me. He agreed to let me move the conversation here to the comments of this post. I wanted to do this to 1) allow him to clarify his position or rebut my assessment for others to consider, and 2) allow me to respond more fully to his response without getting lost in a world of FB Messenger Chat tangents. The text below is simply a copy/paste (nothing added or taken away):
ReplyDeleteColby: He doesn't actually make close comparisons of the BoM with the bible. That's why I didn't engage closely with his work in that section. That section is titled "1.4 Past studies on the dependence of the BM on the KJV." That has nothing to do with his paper.
I note him where he is relevant.
Be critical, but be accurate.
I want critique, but I don't want to have to correct your assumptions in the critique.
"He doesn't actually make close comparisons of the BoM with the bible. That's why I didn't engage closely with his work in that section. That section is titled "1.4 Past studies on the dependence of the BM on the KJV."
DeleteThis is precisely my point - to inform the reader that the primary thesis has more to do with KJV text in the Book of Mormon than it does with the Yahwist influence in the Book of Mormon. The J source is simply illustrative of your primary thesis.