Townsend's thesis is concerned with the J source in the Book of Mormon. The identification of Yahwist material in the Pentateuch, like most assertions of the documentary hypothesis has broad interpretation among a variety of domestic and international scholars.1 Varying theories are posited regarding the attribution of scriptural texts to the J source,2 the dating of the J source,3 and even the questionable existence of the J source.4 Thus, there is a degree of subjectivity within the scholarly world regarding the interpretation of scripture, and what scriptures belong to J or whether a Yahwist source ever existed. More orthodox advocates of the documentary hypothesis accept the J source, including Joel Baden. Baden is a brilliant scholar who graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in Hebrew Studies in 2007, whose publications with prestigious venues are beginning to stack up. Baden currently teaches at Yale Divinity School. In 2012, Yale published Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, which is one of the primary sources Townsend uses in his identification of J material within the Pentateuch. Additionally, the identification of the rest of the Yahwist source in the Pentateuch comes from Baden's Promise to the Patriarchs, and his published dissertation, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch.5 Townsend relies upon Joel Baden's identification of the J source for his framework in engaging the Book of Mormon.
I don't have any arguments regarding Baden's identification of the J source in the Pentateuch. This post, however, is simply for the purpose of informing the (potentially uninformed) reader that there are scholars who take issue with Baden's arguments, including his authorial source allocations.6 The benefit of engaging the various arguments regarding the Yahwist material could provide informative interpretations that would challenge the relevancy of the inclusion or exclusion of J material in a study of the Book of Mormon. For example, many European scholars reject J and E altogether, and refer to the D and P sources, as well as non-D and non-P. Townsend acknowledges this diversity (74-79), but for purposes of his thesis he relies upon Baden's source identification under the premise that Baden has "made a sustained and coherent argument for the viability of a refined view of the J source" (79). However, if there was no Yahwist source, per se, as a number of Biblical scholars believe, then Townsend's contrast of J with the BoM loses some relevancy. Of course if there was a Yahwist source and the scriptural material attributed to J by Baden is correct, than this is a non-issue. My point though, isn't to assert that Baden is right or wrong, or that Townsend's reliance upon Baden was misguided or imprudent, rather, my purpose is to emphasize the broader scholarly discussion on the topic that Townsend himself highlights, but is beyond the scope of his thesis. Since various interpretations within the scholarly community will result in divergent conclusions, it is important to understand that scholarly consensus is niche at best.
To illustrate, a small corner of scholarly disagreement regarding the publication of Baden's dissertation, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, is quite interesting. David Carr (a seasoned Biblical scholar) wrote a fairly harsh review of Baden's revised dissertation for Review of Biblical Literature.7 Other scholars took note of the critique and discussed Carr's review, some agreeing with Carr's sentiments and others voicing opposition. Notable scholarly heavyweights join in on the conversation, including Jeffrey Stackert, Nathan MacDonald, Bernard Levinson, Ron Hendel, and a handful of other accomplished scholars. David Carr chimes in to respond to some of these arguments. Before highlighting some of this conversation, a succinct summary of Carr's review was written by Daniel McClellan and is provided as follows:
Carr takes issue with Baden's conclusion, primarily because he sees Joel['s] argumentation as prioritizing his "system" over "detailed textual observation." Joel must, according to David, adopt "idiosyncratic" source-critical analyses of certain texts in order for his model to hold. Additionally, he heavily criticizes Joel for not interacting with the majority of the German pentateuchal scholarship produced in the last 30 years. In fact, he calls it, "a sad example in North American research of ignorance of and lack of specific engagement with recent European scholarship (particularly untranslated German pentateuchal scholarship)."8Baden's work was criticized for his source allocation and lack of engagement with (German) Pentateuchal scholarship. Jim Getz' wrote that Carr "doesn't have much positive to say," but acknowledges that, "Carr's criticisms are valid to some extent. At this level you really have to at least give a nod to the larger scholarly world." John Hobbins chimes in and agrees that, "you can't do world class pentateuchal source analysis without interacting with at least a subset of the above on a sustained basis." Hobbins is referring to Konrad Schmid, Jan Gertz, Erhard Blum, Reinhard Achenbach, Christoph Levin, Jean Louis Ska, as well as David Carr. Additionally, he adds that this list (as suggested by Carr) is incomplete without also engaging the work of Menahem Haran, Baruch Schwartz (ironically, Baden's dissertation advisor), Alexander Rofe, and Tzemah Yoreh on a sustained basis. Nathan MacDonald writes, "I wish I could say that Carr was being unfair. In mitigation it could be said that Baden was poorly advised." He continues:
I recall that one German scholar (I forget whom) said to me that it took them a year to come to terms with the debate (and the bar is obviously higher if you don’t have German as a Muttersprache). They also said that they would never allow a doctoral student to take on Pentateuchal criticism, only someone doing a Habilitation (the second German doctorate). I think this highlights the problem. There has been an enormous and highly sophisticated debate in the continent over the last 25 years. Little has been brokered into English.
It should also be observed that there are no more than a handful of scholars in american world who know the literature sufficiently well to supervise a dissertation on Pentateuchal criticism, even if it were advisable.Bernard Levinson agreed in principle, but softens the blow by discussing Baden's scope and success within that scope. Simeon Chavel criticizes those who were too harsh against Baden, and Ron Hendel criticized Carr, asserting that he should be ashamed of the tone and content of his review, and that it was unprofessional for a senior scholar to attack a junior scholar as Carr did. Carr responded by saying that his criticisms were not done lightly, and that it was within his purview to critique literature that is within his discipline.9 There is much more to the conversation which is very interesting and insightful, and well worth the read.
While I haven't highlighted much of the supportive comments of Baden (primarily by Jeffrey Stackert), there are plenty of comments in Baden's defense. My purpose in highlighting some of the critical remarks was to demonstrate the level of disagreements that take place within the scholarly community regarding topics such as source criticism. That having been said, it should be noted that since 2010, Baden has been published alongside Carr and other top-notch scholars, such as in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research,10 and The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America.11 Baden teaches at Yale, and has been published by Yale, Mohr Siebeck, and other prestigious venues. He clearly has earned a place among reputable Biblical scholars, and as I mentioned before, I take no exception at this point with his attribution of scriptural texts to J.
Townsend's work identifies the J source within the Book of Mormon and spends concerted effort in focusing upon the creation story beginning in Genesis 2. So far as I'm aware, there aren't any disputes regarding this attribution by scholars who accept Yahwist authorship. All of this having been said, I'll finally note that this is not a direct critique of Townsend's thesis. Rather, it is simply to inform the (potential) readership of the larger discussion that is going on in Pentateuchal criticism, lest there be any misunderstanding regarding scholarly consensus on topics such as this. It would be erroneous to infer that Baden's identification of the Yahwist source is accepted without contest, or somehow representative of the majority of Biblical Scholarship.
______________________
1 Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien write, "The Documentary Hypothesis is a catchall name covering the many proposals that emerged to cope with the belief that the positing of two or more sources could perhaps explain puzzling features of the Pentateuch," in Campbell and O'Brien, Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1; some scholars would disagree with this assessment, for example, Thomas Römer referred to the "collapse of the Documentary hypothesis (at least in the German-speaking world)..." referring to the demise of the DH in certain circles within Biblical scholarship, in Römer, "How to Write a Literary History of the Hebrew Bible? A Response to David Carr and Konrad Schmid," Indian Theological Studies 50/1 (2013):9
2 Two very user-friendly sources are: Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993); and Richard Elliot Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003)
3 John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992); idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); idem, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2015); see a review of Seters works by Thomas B. Dozeman, "The Institutional Setting of the Late Formation of the Pentateuch in the Work of John Van Seters," Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, Seminar Paper Series Number 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 253-264
4 A Farewell to the Yahwist?, Eds. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); available online here.
5 Joel Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); idem, The Promise to the Patriarchs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); idem, J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009)
6 For the third and final instance in this post of turning to Mark A. O'Brien, see his review of Baden's The Composition of the Pentateuch in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (2012); available online here.
7 David M. Carr, "Review of Baden Joel S., J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch," Review of Biblical Literature 12 (2010); available online here.
8 Daniel McClellan, "David Carr Reviews Joel Baden's Dissertation," Daniel O. McClellan Wordpress, December 19, 2010; available online here.
9 Jim Getz, "Review of Baden's J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch," December 19, 2010, Ketuvim: the writings of James R. Getz Jr. (Blog), accessed May 10, 2017; available online here. I highly recommend reading the comments to the post in their entirety, as they are quite informative and engaging.
10 The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, eds. Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011
11 The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, eds. Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2016)
