{ "responseHeader":{ "status":0, "QTime":0, "params":{ "q":"{!q.op=AND}id:\"205723\"", "fq":"!embargo_i:1", "wt":"json"}}, "response":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[ { "date_t":"2016-05", "thumb_s":"/fc/55/fc550d15ebf08efee9e077acd68525b12ef87e8f.jpg", "type_t":"Text", "created_tdt":"2016-06-28T00:00:00Z", "description_t":"This study explores the influence of the King James Bible (KJV) on the Book of Mormon (BM) by examining how the BM appropriates and adapts the text of the J source of the Pentateuch-a narrative strand from Genesis to Deuteronomy-and weaves phrases, ideas, motifs, and characters into the text. I identify the full range of influence of the J source of the Pentateuch on the text of the BM in Part II, and then analyze the use of Gen. 2-4 in its own literary context, in ancient sources, and finally in the BM. Through close reading and analysis the study highlights the gaps between the meaning of Gen. 2-4 in its own literary context and the way that the BM interprets its themes and overall message. 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 study has important implications for BM studies broadly and for historical-critical studies of the BM in particular. Moving forward, BM studies will need to grapple with the heavy influence that the KJV had on the composition of the BM. Past studies have identified limited influence of the KJV on the text for several reasons, but whatever the reasons it is clear that there are specific ways to move the field forward. Studies have focused on the block quotations of Isaiah in the BM, and some have explored the use of Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi and other portions of the text. Unfortunately, there are very few studies that have attempted to broaden the scope and look at the influen ce of a larger section of the KJV and its more subtle uses throughout the entire BM It is my hope that this study can be a stepping-stone of sorts for future work. I have looked specifically at how the BM uses parts of Genesis through Deuteronomy, but this leaves the door open to exploring the influence of any and all of the other parts of the KJV and their influence on the text of the BM.", "publication_type_t":"honors thesis", "metadata_cataloger_t":"CLR", "filesize_i":1138857, "subject_t":"Book of Mormon - Criticism, Textual", "format_extent_t":"25,069 bytes", "restricted_i":0, "rights_management_t":"(c) Colby J. Townsend", "ark_t":"ark:/87278/s6dr64q5", "identifier_t":"honors/id/71", "title_t":"Appropriation and adaptation of J material in the Book of Mormon", "setname_s":"ir_htoa", "creator_t":"Townsend, Colby J.", "year_graduated_t":"2016", "department_t":"World Languages & Cultures", "doi_t":"doi:10.26053/0H-1Y1C-7KG0", "parent_i":0, "language_t":"eng", "format_medium_t":"application/pdf", "permissions_reference_url_t":"https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1311661", "id":205723, "oldid_t":"honors 71", "publisher_t":"University of Utah", "format_t":"application/pdf", "file_s":"/1a/d6/1ad69a2a5326cea27fbfd12cf8318eb8972a5211.pdf", "outdated_terms_t":"Mormons; Mormonism", "modified_tdt":"2023-08-11T17:39:10Z", "faculty_mentor_t":"David Bokovoy", "school_or_college_t":"College of Humanities", "_version_":1788479740082913280, "ocr_t":"APPROPRIATION AND ADAPTATION OF J MATERIAL IN THE BOOK OF MORMON By Colby J. Townsend A Senior Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts in Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies (Religion and Culture Emphasis) In Languages and Literature Approved: ____________________ Dr. David Bokovoy Thesis Supervisor _________________________ Dr. Katharina Gerstenberger Chair, Languages and Literature ____________________ Dr. Eric Laursen Honors Faculty Advisor _________________________ Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College May 2016 Copyright ©2016 All Rights Reserved 2 3 Contents 1. Part I: Introduction…………………………………………………………2 1.1 Past Studies on Intertextuality and Scripture………………………..6 1.2 Approaches for Locating Intertextuality Since 1980…….…………..10 1.3 The Method Used in the Present Investigation……….…………….25 1.4 Past Studies on the Dependence of the Book of Mormon on the King James Bible……………………………………………35 2. Part II: The Documentary Hypothesis………………………………………74 2.1 Current Trends in Pentateuchal Scholarship………………………...76 3. Locating Textual Dependence in the BM on the J Source…………………...79 3.1 The Yahwist in the Book of Mormon………………………………79 4. Part III: The Hermeneutics of Book of Mormon Exegesis of the J Source: Gen. 2:4b-4:16 as a Test Case…………………………………….106 4.1 Analysis…………………………………………………………....106 4.1.1 Gen. 2:4b-25 in its Literary Context……………………………...107 4.1.2 Gen. 2:4b-25 Interpreted………………………………………...109 4.1.3 Gen. 3:1-24 in its Literary Context………………………………129 4.1.4 Gen. 3:1-24 Interpreted………………………………………….130 4.1.5 Gen. 4:1-16 in its Literary Context……………………………….154 4.1.6 Gen. 4:1-16 Interpreted………………………………………….156 5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………165 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………168 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....170 4 Abbreviations* Hebrew Bible Gen. Ex. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Judg. 1 Sam. 2 Sam. 1 Kgs. 2 Kgs. Isa. Jer. Ezek. Hos. Joel Amos Ob. Jon. Mic. Nah. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech. Mal. Ps./Pss. Prov. Job Song Ruth Lam. Eccl. Esth. Dan. Ezra Neh. 1 Chron. 2 Chron. Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Psalms Proverbs Job Songs of Songs Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles New Testament Matt. Mark Luke John Acts Rom. 1 Cor. 2 Cor. Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. 1 Thess. 2 Thess. Titus Phlm. Heb. Jas. 1 Pet. 2 Pet. 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Rev. Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation Book of Mormon 1 Ne. 2 Ne. Jacob Enos Jarom Omni W of M Mosiah Alma Hel. 3 Ne. 4 Ne. Morm. Ether Mor. 1 Nephi 2 Nephi Jacob Enos Jarom Omni Words of Mormon Mosiah Alma Helaman 3 Nephi 4 Ne. Mormon Ether Moroni 2 *Abbreviations for the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha follow The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd Edition. ABSTRACT This study explores the influence of the King James Bible (KJV) on the Book of Mormon (BM) by examining how the BM appropriates and adapts the text of the J source of the Pentateuch–a narrative strand from Genesis to Deuteronomy–and weaves phrases, ideas, motifs, and characters into the text. I identify the full range of influence of the J source of the Pentateuch on the text of the BM in Part II, and then analyze the use of Gen. 2-4 in its own literary context, in ancient sources, and finally in the BM. Through close reading and analysis the study highlights the gaps between the meaning of Gen. 2-4 in its own literary context and the way that the BM interprets its themes and overall message. 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 study has important implications for BM studies broadly and for historical-critical studies of the BM in particular. Moving forward, BM studies will need to grapple with the heavy influence that the KJV had on the composition of the BM. Past studies have identified limited influence of the KJV on the text for several reasons, but whatever the reasons it is clear that there are specific ways to move the field forward. Studies have focused on the block quotations of Isaiah in the BM, and some have explored the use of Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi and other portions of the text. Unfortunately, there are very few studies that have attempted to broaden the scope and look at the influence of a larger section of the KJV and its more subtle uses throughout the entire BM. It is my hope that this study can be a stepping-stone of sorts for future work. I have looked specifically at how the BM uses parts of Genesis through Deuteronomy, but this leaves the door open to exploring the influence of any and all of the other parts of the KJV and their influence on the text of the BM. 2 3 1. Part I: Introduction Since its publication in 1611, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible has had a significant amount of influence over Western history. Although that influence has begun to ease over the last several decades, the KJV is still lauded as one of the great masterpieces of English literature. It is undeniable that the text heavily influenced American culture from the founding of the country to well after the “Second Great Awakening” (ca. 1790-1830 CE), and then continued to impact the language of religious speech and sermon giving. Even great thinkers like Abraham Lincoln delivered speeches that were infused with King James Bible English. 1 It should not come as a surprise, therefore, to discover that one of the most influential American religious figures of the 19th century also borrowed from this storehouse of English phraseology. During the production of Mormon scripture Joseph Smith (JS) borrowed heavily 2 from the religious language he and his contemporaries were “swimming in.” 3 The KJV was the “Authorized Translation,” and the Bible that American children were raised with during the first half of the 19th century. Locating dependence in the Book of Mormon (BM) on the KJV can be very difficult. At times it is very clear where the KJV influences the BM, but at others it can be difficult to See A. E. Elmore, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: Echoes of the Bible and Book of Common Prayer (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2009); and Robert Alter, “American Literary Style and the Presence of the King James Bible”, in New England Review, Vol. 30, No. 4 (2009-2010), 61-65. 2 See Ellis T. Rasmussen, “Textual Parallels to the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Commandments as found in the Bible” (unpublished Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1951); Lois Jean Smutz, “Textual Parallels to the Doctrine and Covenants (Sections 65 to 133) as Found in the Bible” (unpublished Master’s Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1971); H. Michael Marquardt, The Use of the Bible in the Book of Mormon and Early Nineteenth Century Events Reflected in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1979); Wesley P. Walters, The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990); Nicholas J. Frederick, “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John” (unpublished PhD dissertation; Claremont Graduate University, 2013). 3 Paul Han, Swimming in the Sea of Scripture: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 2 Corinthians 4.7-13.13 (Library of New Testament Studies, 519; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014). 1 4 identify dependence. My purpose in this introduction is to bring together past studies dealing with intertextuality specifically in the area of literary influence, and summarize the different methods scholars have utilized in this field of inquiry. I will then specify my own methodology to determine the use of the King James translation of the J source in the BM. To be able to reliably reconstruct the dependence of the BM on the J source of the Pentateuch 4 it is very important to adopt a clear method so that there is consistency and clarity in the analysis and conclusions. Although scholars strive for consensus, it is impossible for all scholars to come to complete agreement in every detail when attempting to locate literary influence between texts. As Richard Hays has pointed out, studies on intertextuality between religious texts do not allow for exact scientific precision when claiming dependence from one text to another and precision is not attainable, because exegesis is not an exact science. 5 This being said, Hays does not hesitate to highlight the importance of studying textual dependence when he points out how we are still able to specify rules of thumb that help us to decide if a phrase is an echo or not. 6 Although scholars may not always agree on the specific details, it is a worthwhile venture to track how and where the text of the BM is perceived to be dependent on the KJV because this comparison will shed light on future projects in the field of Mormon Studies that will seek to track the compositional history of the BM. The study of quotation and allusion in biblical texts is tedious and has created a vast field of research. Many studies are fraught with a lack of clear defining methodology, and, until only recently, lacked the kind of scrutiny the field of historical-critical studies requires to be part of 4 See Appendix A for a list of verses in Genesis-Deuteronomy that are identified as the J source in this study. I follow Joel Baden’s past work on the Yahwistic source. 5 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Have: Yale University Press, 1989), 29. 6 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29. 5 the academic enterprise. 7 As well as the difficulty of not having a clear approach, the scholars that interpreted what they saw as biblical quotations, allusions, and echoes were often working in their own sphere, ignoring or in ignorance of past scholarship on the subject. It was common for each succeeding generation to begin the study anew, rather than taking up the advancements in method of past studies and adding to them in their own research. The study of textual dependence is important on several levels. As Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold have recently made clear, the study of quotations and allusions to texts (in this case the Hebrew Bible[HB]) is important for (1) establishing a relative chronology of the books under consideration, (2) discovering wherever a text quotes from or alludes to another text in order to determine the influence the given text has had on other literature, and (3) textual criticism in establishing the textual history of the written text. 8 These statements are accurate in describing ancient Jewish sources but are they applicable when discussing the importance of texts composed millennia after the biblical period and their dependence on biblical or prior writings? The KJV has influenced numerous works over the last few centuries in worldview, verbiage, interpretation of biblical text, 9 and so on. 10 Even in our day there are Only a brief survey of past scholarship illuminates scholar after scholar complaining about earlier studies and how they simply were not careful enough in refining their methodology, and, therefore, led to conclusions that could not be sustained upon closer evaluation. See Richard L. Schultz, Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup, 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) for a good example of this. Schultz is not alone in voicing complaints about past studies, as is seen in his citations of numerous other scholars that have voiced the same. 8 Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 15. 9 The KJV itself is a late 16th, early 17th century Christian reading of the Bible. 10 Many of these texts are from the 18th and 19th centuries. A few examples would include Gilbert J. Hunt, The Late War, between the United States and Great Britain, from June 1812, to February 1815. Written in the Ancient Historical Style (New York: David Longworth, 1816); Anonymous, The Christian Economy: Translated from the Original Greek of An Old Manuscript found in the Island of Patmos, where St. John wrote the Book of the Revelation (Philadelphia: M. Carey, 1808). For an examination of more texts that fall into this category, see also Eran Shalev, “‘Written in the Style of Antiquity’: Pseudo-Biblicism and the Early American Republic, 1770-1830,” in Church History 79:4 (December 2010), 800-826; and Eran Shalev, American Zion: The Old Testament as a Political Text from the Revolution to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 7 6 a number of novelists and musicians who are studied due to their heavy use of biblical images. 11 For critical historians, these later texts need to be examined for their use of the Bible as well, especially when some of them claim to be modern translations of ancient records but have no textual witnesses leading up to the time of translation. 12 In this study I will review research on intertextuality within biblical studies and literary criticism. I will illustrate how the combination of two fields of research provides more rigorous criteria in order to explore these issues. I will then present my own methodology based on past research from established scholars in the field of biblical studies. My methodology focuses on how one can locate textual dependence in works that are steeped in the world of the KJV, using as a test case the BM. I will then review past studies on the dependence of the BM on the KJV. It has long been recognized that the lengthy quotations and the language of the BM in general are dependent on the KJV, 13 but it has not been pointed out that a specifically early 19th century American printing of the 1769 edition of the KJV was the text that influenced the 11 See Shirley A. Stave, ed., Toni Morrison and the Bible: Contested Intertextualities (African American Literature and Culture: Expanding and Exploding the Boundaries; New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006); and Michael J. Gilmour, Tangled Up in the Bible: Bob Dylan and Scripture (New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004). 12 For example, some may consider the BM, the topic of the current study, to be in this category. Although I will leave aside the questions of historical dating in respect to the BM, analyzing the sources of the text will help in future discussions on that question and others, such as defining what kind of “translation” the BM is. 13 See, for example, the statement of Sidney B. Sperry in Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 206: In the course of our researches on the Book of Mormon we have never been able to prove historically, that is, with adequate documentation, that Joseph Smith or his scribe had at their sides copies of the King James Version of the Bible to which they made reference as the translation of the Nephite record proceeded. We shall not claim another miracle, however, in the translation, but will simply assume, as most translators would, that the prophet realized the greatness of the King James Version and used it to help him in his work of translation when he came upon familiar scriptures. Many LDS scholars have all but abandoned Sperry’s arguments in the years after his studies. A survey of research reveals that many scholars opt for arguing for the descriptions provided by the witnesses of the translation as primary evidence that Joseph did not copy from a bible, especially when his wife, Emma Smith, told this explicitly to her son, Joseph Smith, III, in a series of interviews that ran from February 4-10, 1879 (a full 50 years after the fact). See Joseph Smith III, Saints Herald (Plano, Iowa), Oct. 1, 1879, 289-290. The argument goes that since the witnesses described the translation as having no manuscript or bible, then there was no manuscript or Bible. As is argued by Sperry above, the evidence in the BM itself is undeniable: Joseph and his scribe took out a copy of the KJV and copied in at least the lengthy quotations. The primary evidence is the text of the BM, not second or third-hand reminiscences recorded decades later. 7 BM. 14 What has been missing in the discussion of the relationship between the Bible and the BM has been a clear methodology for analyzing the use of the KJV in the BM. This study will help to fill that void by providing examples of the use of a strict methodology when searching for the influence of the KJV on the BM. 1.1 Past Studies on Intertextuality and Scripture Comparisons of lexical links began early in the exegetical history of the texts now considered biblical. 15 As early as the rabbinic period we find the Jewish sages commenting on the similarity and connections between the various prophetic writings. A standard explanation in early Rabbinic thought was that “The same communication is revealed to many prophets, yet no two prophets prophesy in the identical phraseology.” 16 Later Christian fathers also recognized these similarities and attributed the phenomenon to the prophets having been “given utterance through one and the same spirit.” 17 These early Jews and Christians saw the attestation of intertextuality as evidence for divine inspiration, and had no issue with similar phraseology between the prophetic texts. The 1611 edition of the KJV has many archaic spelling and grammatical patterns that were revised and updated, culminating in what became the standard 1769 edition of the KJV. Many American printers in the early 19th century would also update the text as they set type, depending on their knowledge of the original languages, or simply a desire for clearer English. Isaac Collins, lauded in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as producing the most accurate bible editions, made grammatical updates to the KJV in his second, 1807 edition. Phrases like “mine hand” and “an homer” were altered to read “mine hand” and “a homer” in this edition, which was copied widely by other American printers. I am indebted to Don Bradley for this insight. 15 I do not mean to imply that Rabbinic and Patristic readings were the earliest interpretations, or the earliest to get in to writing their interpretations of the text. The earliest interpretations we have on record are those found in the biblical books themselves in how they use and reuse other scriptural texts known to the author. The same phenomenon is of course also found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature, the NT, and other early writers like Philo and Josephus. 16 B. Sanh. 89a, The Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (ed. I. Epstein; trans. M. Simon and I. Slotki; Hindhead, Surrey: Soncino, 1948); quoted in Richard L. Schultz, Search for Quotation, 20. 17 Theophilus of Antioch, Theophilus to Antolycus 2.35; (cf. also 2.9), in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds., The AnteNicene Fathers. II. Fathers of the Second Century (10 vols.; trans. M. Dods; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 94-121 (108, cf. also p. 97); quoted in Schultz, Search for Quotation, 20, nt. 4. 14 8 Although there were early commentaries that noted some verbal similarities between the books that would later become the Jewish HB and the Christian Old Testament (OT), 18 an exhaustive study of textual dependence was not taken up until the early to mid 19th century by several scholars. Scholars such as Gesenius, 19 Küper, 20 Ewald, 21 and Caspari 22 all discussed textual dependence in the prophetic books at varying degrees of depth. Heinrich Ewald’s study would turn out to be the most influential of its time. 23 Although scholars such as Ewald did much to locate places of verbal similarities between the prophets they did very little to establish reliable criteria for locating which text was influenced by the other, if in fact there was influence at all. They would often locate places where the texts intersected and base their judgment concerning dependence on either theological grounds or purely traditional assumptions. These approaches proved difficult to maintain toward the end of the 19th century when source and historical-criticism both began to hold sway over previous scholarly constructs for understanding the growth of the HB. 24 Once it was understood that there were multiple Patricia Tull Willey notes the earliest students pointing out verbal similarities as being Abraham Ibn Ezra in the twelfth century, John Calvin in the 16th century, the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations Upon All the Books of the Old and New Testaments of the 17th century, and Robert Lowth in the late 18th century. Up until Robert Lowth the commentators seemed to only be interested in the verbal similarities to understand certain verbs better in other contexts. As Willey points out, Lowth noted “parallel passages with an eye to both historical sequence and rhetorical effort”; Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (SBL Dissertation Series, 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 12 (cf. 11-16). 19 W. Gesenius, Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Kommentar über den Jesaia (3 vols.; Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1821). 20 Augustus Küper, Jeremias librorum sacrorum interpres atque vindex (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1837). 21 Heinrich Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes (2 Vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1840-1841). 22 C. P. Caspari, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Buch Jesaia und zur Geschichte des jesaianischen Zeit (Berlin: L. Oehmigke’s Verlag, 1848); idem, Über Micha den Morasthiten und seine prophetische Schrift: Ein monographischer Beitrag zur Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Schriftthums und zur Auslegung des Buches Micha (Christiania: P. T. Malling, 1852), 440-441, 444; idem, “Jesajanische Studien. I. Jeremia ein Zeuge für die Aechtheit von Jes. c. 34 und mithin auch für die Aechtheit von Jes. c. 33, c. 40-66, c, 13-14, 23 und c. 21, 1-10,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 4 (1843), 1-73; quoted in Schultz, Search for Quotation, 23, nt. 12. 23 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 21. 24 Both source and form criticism have long, detailed histories that cannot be explored here. Source criticism attempts to understand the way a text came to its current state by analyzing the sources, both known and unknown, that went into compiling or writing the text. Form criticism attempts to understand the text from the perspective of its function in life, its Sitz im Leben. 18 9 authors of the book of Isaiah, for instance, it became difficult to simply assign which author was dependent on the other because scholars could no longer assume that all of Isaiah was written before other texts like Jeremiah. In this case it was difficult to determine if it was Deutero or Trito-Isaiah or Jeremiah. 25 The difficulty in locating the direction of textual dependence continued through the turn of the century. Commentators such as Cheyne, 26 Girdlestone, 27 Burrows, 28 Miller, 29 Cassuto, 30 and Zimmerli 31 all spent time in their work discussing the similarities between texts, but very few of them established any kind of criteria to judge the probability of textual dependence going one way or the other. This proved problematic because these scholars were aware of the studies of Wellhausen, 32 Duhm, 33 and their successors on the dating of the books of the HB. Knowing that they could not simply rely on traditional dates for the composition of the books of the HB, scholars were eventually forced to formulate methods for understanding textual dependence based on specific criteria for their research. Patricia Tull Willey argues persuasively in her dissertation that Deutero-Isaiah was not only aware of but also dependent on Jeremiah, Lamentations, Nahum, and a number of post-exilic psalms. See Patricia T. Willey, Remember the Former Things. 26 T. K. Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London: A. & C. Black, 1895). 27 R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Doctrine (2nd edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956 [1897]); idem, Deuterographs: Duplicate Passages in the Old Testament. Their Bearing on the Text and Compilation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894). 28 Millar Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1925). 29 J. W. Miller, Das Verhältnis Jeremias und Hesekiels sprachlich und theologisch untersucht mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Prosareden Jeremias (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1955). 30 Umberto Cassuto, “On the Formal and Stylistic Relationship between Deutero-Isaiah and other Biblical Writers,” in Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies. I. Bible (trans. I. Abrahams; repr.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 141-177. 31 Walther Zimmerli, “Der ‘neue Exodus’ in der Verkündigung der beiden grossen Exilspropheten,” in Zimmerli, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsältze zum Alten Testament, Theologische Bücherei 19 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963), 192-204. 32 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1957 [1878]). Wellhausen was the first to systematize scholarly studies into what he called the Documentary Hypothesis. He posited four sources (J, E, D, and P) as the original ‘documents’ that went into the compilation of the five books of Moses. Although much of his work is still relevant today, few scholars today would agree with Wellhausen’s dating the Law after the prophets. Most would agree that the final form of the Pentateuch was compiled after much of the prophetic literature, there is still a consensus today that sees some form of the Pentateuch as predating the prophets. 33 Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892). 25 10 A shift began in the last half of the 20th century. In 1969 Shalom Paul was aware of the need for reliable criteria for discussing textual dependence when he presented a paper entitled “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah,” at the fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. 34 Paul noted that previous studies on textual dependence were not rigorous enough because: 1. They have noted sporadic surface parallels between the two without subjecting the corresponding contextual relationship and linguistic overtones to further analysis. 2. Their remarks usually are scattered throughout their commentaries rather than being presented in a systematic fashion, which would enable one to appreciate the full extent of the influence. 3. Many points of contact, to the best of my knowledge, have been overlooked so far. 35 Paul offered a comprehensive approach to locating more verbal similarities throughout the HB, but, as Schultz points out, “did not advance the problem much beyond the work of others. In fact, by including among his examples formulaic expressions which were found not only throughout the Old Testament but also in cuneiform inscriptions, he blurred the line between intentional and coincidental correspondences.” 36 Rather than offering a comprehensive list of criteria to determine textual dependence, Paul utilized the old methods and took them to further heights, making the list of correspondences longer but even more confusing for interpreters. Influenced by the approaches created by Cassuto and Paul, Victor Eldridge reexamined the criteria in search of a clear methodology that would help resolve the relationship between the text of Jeremiah and Isaiah. Eldridge set out his approach in this way: 1. To identify the points of similarity between the texts such as words, phrases or ideas common to both passages. 34 Shalom Paul, “Literary and Ideological Echoes of Jeremiah in Deutero-Isaiah,” in P. Peli, ed., Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (1969) (5 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1972), I:102-120; quoted in Schultz, Search for Quotation, 35, nt. 49. 35 Paul, “Literary and Ideological Echoes,” 103; quoted in Schultz, Search for Quotation, 36. 36 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 36. 11 2. To determine the degree to which these words or phrases are characteristic of Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah, compared to their usage elsewhere. 3. To examine the significance of the contexts for understanding the meaning of the passages being compared. 4. To determine the genres being used and the degree to which the parallels may be explained in terms of that genre. 5. To attempt to discover the theological significance of the passage in the overall message of each prophet. 37 Although this list was a step in the right direction, it still lacked the comprehensiveness needed for a reliable set of criteria in locating textual dependence. The first criterion on the list was a given; it was exactly as scholars had been doing since the rabbinic sages had noted some of the similarities between the books of the HB, although Eldridge was more exhaustive. The second and third are very helpful and were in many ways innovative, but cannot resolve the question of dependence. The fourth and fifth criteria have very little to do with the possibility of one text being dependent on the other. One writer is able to appropriate the works of another and create a work that is both theologically coherent and consistent in its genre(s), even if the genre differs from that of the earlier text. The question of methodology would not start to be answered adequately until a number of works by scholars in the 1970s and 1980s set out to be both comprehensive and fair to the sources through establishing strict standards of identifying dependence. This approach led to several crucial studies that have been used and reused in research since the time of their writing. It is these works that I will analyze in order to formulate a methodology that will help me to answer the questions of textual dependence of the BM on the KJV of the J source. 1.2 Approaches for Locating Intertextuality Since 1980 Victor Eldridge, “The Influence of Jeremiah on Isaiah 40-55,” (ThD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978), 63. 37 12 Something happened between the late 1960s and early 1980s that would completely change the field of studies on textual dependence in the biblical corpora, and it did not happen in biblical studies itself. Literary critics began the serious study of what Julia Kristeva would term “intertextuality.” 38 Kristeva’s work was primarily based on the studies of Ferdinand de Saussure and the “relatively unknown [at the time] (to Western Europe) literary theory of Mikael Bakhtin.” 39 She was interested in describing the ways that texts, both oral and written, 40 are composed and how they necessarily interact with other texts, whether consciously or unconsciously. As Kristeva has said, “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.” 41 Her work would later prove indispensable in the study of textual dependence in biblical writings. This claim becomes complicated, as Irwin makes clear, 42 because it is possible that there are just as many versions of intertextuality as there are users of the term. Keeping this in mind it is important to understand how Kristeva’s designation of “intertextuality” has been appropriated by biblical studies. Intertextuality has been appropriated in both literary and biblical studies in ways that Kristeva did not originally intend, and even she would later take a different approach to it then she originally did. Mainstream Approaches Julia Kristeva, “Word, Dialogue and Novel,” in T. Moi, ed., The Kristeva Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 3461; and Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (ed. L. S. Roudiez; Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), 66. These essays were originally written in 1966-1967 shortly after her arrival to Paris from her native Bulgaria. See Maria Jesus Martinez Alfaro, “Intertextuality: Origins and Development of the Concept,” in Atlantis 18 (1-2) 1996, 268. 39 William Irwin, “Against Intertextuality,” in Philosophy and Literature 28, Num. 2 (October, 2004), 228. 40 See Timothy Beal, “Intertextuality,” in Danna Nolan Fewell, ed., Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 22. 41 Kristeva, “Word, Dialogue and Novel,” 37; quoted in Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions, 21. 42 Irwin, “Against Intertextuality,” 227. 38 13 Beginning with the work of Michael Fishbane 43 and Richard Hays44 in the 1980s, scholars began to determine specific criteria that would help to establish reliable methods for locating textual dependence from one scriptural text to another. These works are exemplary because they focus on two separate religious traditions. Fishbane’s work focuses on inner-biblical exegesis between the books of the HB, whereas Hays’ work focuses on Paul’s dependence in his NT letters on the OT. 45 Both books have become classics in the study of textual dependence in the Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions. Michael Fishbane Fishbane research on inner-biblical exegesis has had an incredibly important impact, especially since the first publication of his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel in 1985. 46 The book provided a comprehensive view of the use and influence of earlier biblical texts on the writing and editing of later ones. In four parts he analyzed scribal comments and corrections, legal exegesis, aggadic exegesis, and mantological exegesis. Fishbane’s language was much more technical than Richard Hays’ later research, and that might explain why Hays’ terms were more readily adopted in subsequent studies. Fishbane adopted terms like tradition 47 and traditum 48 were essential to his overall argument that the interpretation of the HB did not begin simply in a post-biblical world, or even in the major Jewish writings of the second temple period. Rather, this process was already taking place in the time of the bible, and it is possible to discover traces of this development in the biblical writings themselves. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture. 45 Hays examines only the undisputed letters of Paul (i.e. Rom., 1 & 2 Cor., Gal., 1 Thess., Phil., and Philemon). 46 Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 47 “…a long and varied process of transmission,” Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 6. 48 “…the content of tradition,” Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 6. 43 44 14 Richard Hays Hays’ work has been highly influential in studies on the New Testament’s use of the HB, even to the point of other scholarly works ‘echoing’ or ‘alluding’ to his own. 49 Very helpful in applying a methodology to texts later than the canonized HB, Hays offered a methodology direct, succinct, and exhaustive enough for his purposes. Although only attempting to locate echoes, not quotations or allusions, Hays’ criteria for establishing an echo can be extended to both quotation and allusion. His criteria for an echo are: 1. Availability: Was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or original readers? 50 2. Volume: The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may also be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture, and how much rhetorical stress does the echo receive in Paul’s discourse? 51 3. Recurrence: How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage? 52 4. Thematic Coherence: How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing? Is its meaning effect consonant with other quotations in the same letter or elsewhere in the Pauline corpus? Do the images and ideas of the proposed precursor text illuminate Paul’s argument? 53 5. Historical Plausibility: Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it? (We should always bear in mind, of course, that Paul might have written things that were not readily intelligible to his actual readers.) 54 See Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Atlanta: Brill and The Society of Biblical Literature, 2010); and Kenneth Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (JSNTSup 282; London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005). 50 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29. 51 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 52 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 53 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 54 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 49 15 6. History of Interpretation: Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes? 55 7. Satisfaction: With or without clear confirmation from the other criteria listed here, does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse? Does it produce for the reader a satisfying account of the effect of the intertextual relation? This criterion is difficult to articulate precisely without falling into the affective fallacy, but it is finally the most important test: it is in fact another way of asking whether the proposed reading offers a good account of the experience of a contemporary community of competent readers. 56 Even with these controls Hays clarifies that “There are always only shades of certainty when these criteria are applied to particular texts.” 57 As he points out elsewhere, the study of textual dependence is not a scientific venture. 58 There is always going to be some room for individual scholarly interpretation or preference when it comes to assigning textual dependence. However, Hays goes on to say, “the more of them [the criteria] that fall clearly into place, the more confident we can be in rendering an interpretation of the echo effect in a given passage.” 59 We may not be able to establish historical fact, but we can establish probability. Hays’ work is an example that has stood the test of scholarly criticism for twentyfive years and is still being applied to current research on echoes in the field of biblical literature. His work, and the work of those who have followed his methods, will be used heavily throughout this study. Benjamin Sommer Sommer has also been an influential scholar in the field of literary allusion and influence. Sommer’s book, A Prophet Reads Scripture, 60 looks specifically at the various ways that other HB texts are brought into Isa. 40-66 at the compositional level. Sommer was very critical of other Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 31. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 31-32. 57 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 32. 58 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29. 59 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 32. 60 Benjamin Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). 55 56 16 biblical scholars’ use of terms like intertextuality, exegesis, and allusion. From his perspective, biblical scholars had not made themselves aware of contemporary literary criticism, and were therefore misunderstanding and underutilizing the discoveries made in literary-critical circles. Sommer’s introductory chapter clearly shows that this was the case, and offers clear definitions for the terms he uses in his study. For purposes I will explain below, I think that Sommer went too far in his criticism, and at times I was left wondering why his examples of allusion and exegesis were so often from modern rather than ancient texts, but the overall effect of his thesis has been tremendous. The fact that Deutero-Isaiah, as he labels all of Isa. 40-66, appropriated materials from other Israelite sources can be shown effectively even if the reader disagrees with some of the assumptions undergirding the thesis. What is almost more important is that definitions and assumptions are clearly stated. In another study, dependent on the work of Clayton and Rothstein, 61 Sommer distinguishes between allusion and intertextuality, stating that they are not compatible. 62 Sommer was reviewing the criticism Lyle Eslinger had written against the work of Michael Fishbane. 63 In Sommer’s view Eslinger had not gone to great enough lengths to understand the terms that Fishbane employed in his work on inner-biblical exegesis in the HB, and Eslinger also did not fully understand the terms ‘allusion’ and ‘intertextuality’. According to Sommer, Eslinger’s quest to lay aside inner-biblical exegesis (as Sommer defines it, “the use by one discrete text of other texts”) 64 due to the difficulty in determining which text came first is not resolved when Eslinger claims that we should instead turn to innerJay Clayton and Eric Rothstein, “Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and Intertextuality,” in Clayton and Rothstein, eds., Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History (Maddison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), 5-6. 62 Benjmain D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” in Vetus Testamentum 46, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1996), 486. 63 Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,” in Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992), 47-58. 64 Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible,” 486. 61 17 biblical allusions and intertextuality. Allusion does posit a historical transmission of one specific text to another and therefore requires a diachronic component in its study. Intertextuality, on the other hand, includes any sort of connection between texts across space and time. 65 It is the intersection of a text with another, whether one is dependent on the other or not. With this in mind, allusion would fall under intertextuality in studying specific places where texts ‘intersect’, but specifically those occasions where one text is dependent on another in lexical, thematic, ideological, or structural means of presenting its message. Because of this I disagree entirely with Sommer’s statement that allusion and intertextuality are not compatible because I see allusion as an expression of textual dependence falling underneath the larger subject of intertextuality. “Allusion” and “textual dependence” are sub-topics of the larger topic of “intertextuality.” It is not that they are incompatible, but rather that the study of intertextuality is broad and general, whereas textual dependence is narrow and specific. The student has to begin at intertextuality to locate the places of intersection, and then move to textual dependence in order to classify the use of the primary text as allusion. They are two sides of the same coin. The main difference between Sommer and Eslinger seems to be found in understanding and accepting similar definitions of terms. To be sure, Sommer points to places in Eslinger’s critique that simply do not pay attention to Fishbane’s work, but the main difference between the two is in how they understand the labels they are using. All throughout Sommer’s response to Eslinger he points to what he perceives as the incorrect use of literary-critical terms and their dissonance to contemporary literary critics. The difference in use of language is not only between Sommer and Eslinger in Sommer’s response, but it is also with Fishbane’s use of terms. Late in his essay Sommer says, 65 Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible,” 486. 18 “Consequently, I think that a more appropriate term for the phenomenon Fishbane discusses would be “inner-biblical allusion,” though, following the work of literary theorists, I mean by the term something other than what Eslinger means by it.” 66 This confusion of terms has plagued intertextual studies of the HB and NT, and has been a main part of the problem that still needs to be remedied. While it is helpful that Sommer raises the issue of involving literary critical studies, it must also be understood that in biblical studies, as in other fields of research, these terms will be appropriated according to the needs the field has of them. Recent Approaches Dennis R. MacDonald There have been a few outlying hypotheses that have had less influence on other studies, but are still important to discuss. In 1998 the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont Graduate University held a conference on Mimesis and Intertextuality. 67 Mimesis is “the process [in ancient Greece] of training students to write through imitation of recognized models.” 68 Mimesis requires that the author is dependent on previous writings for his new text. MacDonald has written extensively on the use of mimesis in early Christianity, especially in regard to the dependence of the passion narrative of Jesus in Mark on the death of Hector in the Iliad. 69 Scholars at the conference discussed many issues in mimesis, intertextuality, and textual dependence, but a major topic was MacDonald’s method. MacDonald developed six criteria that has helped him to detect mimesis in ancient texts, “even when authors disguise their Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion, and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible,” 488. The papers read at the conference were published in Dennis R. MacDonald, ed., Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001). 68 Dennis R. MacDonald, “Introduction,” MacDonald, ed., Mimesis and Intertextuality, 1. 69 Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). 66 67 19 reliance on models.” 70 Without reference to Hays or any other past scholarly constructs, 71 MacDonald provides these six criteria that he has developed for locating mimesis: 1. Accessibility: “…refers to the physical distribution of the model and its likely availability to the author of the imitation.” 72 2. Analogy: “…seeks for examples of imitations of the same story by other authors.” 73 3. Density: “…assesses the volume of parallels between the two texts.” 74 4. Order: “…looks for similar sequences for the parallels.” 75 5. Distinctive Traits: “Occasionally two texts contain unusual characteristics that set them apart, and often one can explain the peculiarity in the model as the distinctive contribution of its author, whereas the peculiarity in the hypertext issues from imitation.” 76 6. Interpretability: “This involves an assessment of why the author may have targeted the model for imitation, such as the replacement of its values and perspectives with different ones.” 77 These are helpful criteria for locating textual dependence, but MacDonald does not offer any categories of dependence, unless we recognize mimesis as one. Although the text may be dependent on another as its model, the different places of dependence throughout the text need to be analyzed and categorized into different types of dependence. Are there places where the secondary text quotes, alludes, or echoes the primary text? Or, is mimesis only a category of structural dependence? MacDonald does not seem to think this is an issue because he never asks these or any similar questions. Rather, his methodology is focused more on structural and thematic links than on lexical links between texts. Although he does not state it as plainly in his essay mentioned above, in another work MacDonald describes those who are too rigid in their methodology as “philological MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2. Although MacDonald does not reference any other scholars regarding past models for locating dependence in this essay, he does point to dependence for his criteria on Richard Hays in Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 207, nt. 32. 72 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2. 73 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2. 74 Macdonald, “Introduction,” 2. 75 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2. 76 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2. 77 MacDonald, “Introduction,” 3. 70 71 20 fundamentalists who require unmistakable markers of dependence, such as shared vocabulary, similar genres, and distinctive grammatical or poetic constructions.” 78 It is not important to find verbal links between texts, instead, any approach that focuses strictly on those links is considered fundamentalist by MacDonald. Mimesis, to MacDonald, is the approach one should take in discussing dependence from one text to another. But what do we do with shorter isolated phrases that are obviously dependent on identifiable sources, but do follow larger structural patterns of a previous text? Unfortunately, MacDonald seems to think these questions are not important. Devorah Dimant Devorah Dimant’s 1988 study on the use of Mikra (ִקרא ָ מ, “reading,” often synonymous with “Bible,” or “Tanakh”) 79 in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature dating to the end of the second temple period 80 is an example of a positive move forward in scholarship over the last thirty years. Recognizing “the need for a more rigorous and comprehensive methodology” 81 Dimant set out to establish a reliable framework to study the use of scripture in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature. Dimant distinguishes between two broad, yet formally distinct categories in the way apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature uses biblical texts: a compositional and an expositional use of biblical elements. 82 In compositional use biblical elements are interwoven into the text without external formal markers such as citation formulae. The elements simply become part of the framework of the new composition. In expositional use biblical elements Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 7. See Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sisling, eds., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988; Repr. Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), xxiii. 80 Dimant, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mulder and Sisling, eds., Mikra, 379-419. 81 Dimant, “Use and Interpretation,” 380. 82 Dimant, “Use and Interpretation,” 382. 78 79 21 are presented explicitly as coming from a former work, with clear external markers. The divine word is subservient to the overall aim and structure of the compositional use, whereas in the expositional the divine word is introduced in order to interpret it. Dimant actually expanded these categories to three by adding an intermediate category between the expositional and compositional techniques. This category is not given a name, but is very similar to the expositional technique. Divine speeches are usually quoted directly, generally occurring in a discourse, and are provided in order to extract a specific lesson from the speech. As Dimant states, “The dominant interpretive principle here is actualization of a divine utterance, as expressed in a given biblical text.” 83 As Dimant goes on to point out, there is a difference between divine speeches and divine acts, where the acts are usually referred to in shorter summaries in narrative form, where biblical events and characters are mentioned. They will be introduced by explicit names or will include allusions to the original context, but not in precise quotations. Dimant’s study distinguishes between four major uses of Mikra in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature: (1) Explicit Quotations, (2) Explicit Mention of Persons and Circumstances, (3) Implicit Quotations, and (4) Allusions. Dimant deconstructs each of these four types of uses, each falling under the categories of expositional or compositional use of Mikra. Her study of methodology is much more comprehensive than both Michael Fishbane’s 84 and Richard Hays’ studies, but she does not include criteria for establishing quotations or allusions. As will be discussed further below, Kevin Spawn has recently made clear that, despite assumptions to the contrary, even establishing the source or referent of an explicit quotation can be difficult, and sometimes impossible. One only needs to look at Neh. Dimant, “Use and Interpretation,” 383. Dimant states that the weakness of Fishbane’s study is that he excludes an “overall comprehensive framework.” See Dimant, “Use and Interpretation,” 380, nt. 6. 83 84 22 10:35 (34) and the scholarly literature to see that explicit quotations are not as cut and dry as we so often assume. 85 While the framework Dimant conceptualized was useful, it has had little impact on the field since its original writing. While extremely helpful in delineating between various categories of uses of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Dimant offered little in regards to establishing to a degree of accuracy that the identified quotation or allusion was accurate within the particular text. Her focus on the way that biblical elements were used within the later text was a leap forward, and in each of her case studies she successfully argued for the use of earlier motifs. Moving outside of those case studies, to the more implicit echoes, was outside the scope of her study. More Recent Developments The last decade of scholarship on intertextuality and religious writings has seen the publication of scholarly studies that are not only taking the question of methodology seriously but taking up the research of the past generations and seeing what can be used in their search for appropriate criteria in their studies. Not all scholars have defined their terms. As stated earlier, one of the main issues of earlier studies was that new generations seemed to ignore past studies rather than building upon the work of previous research. There are a number of studies that have made great strides in organizing clear, rigorous approaches to textual dependence. The methods of these approaches are close enough to one another that I will synthesize their work into one approach that will be applicable to this study. See Kevin L. Spawn, “As It Is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax, and Significance (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Band 311; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002). 85 23 A good example utilizing the work of past scholarly studies, especially Hays’ work, is the recent work of Christopher Beetham. 86 In setting out a method for locating dependence in the letter to the Colossians on the HB, Beetham employs the following definition of quotation: Quotation: An intentional, explicit, verbatim or near verbatim citation of a former text of six or more words in length. A formal quotation is a quotation accompanied by an introductory marker, or quotation formula; an informal quotation lacks such a marker. 87 For Beetham and several other exegetes there are two kinds of quotations, formal and informal. A formal quotation is the most direct form of dependence where the author employs specific terminology to reference a text his audience would presumably know. Certain phrases are used to introduce the quotation such as, “…as the prophet says…” (Acts 7:48, NRSV); “…what does the scripture say?” (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30, NRSV); “…it is written…” (Josh. 8:31; 1 Kgs. 2:3; Matt. 2:5; 1 Cor. 14:21, NRSV); and “…as the law also says.” (1 Cor. 14:34, NRSV). These are literary devices signaling to the reader that the author is now quoting a specific text or tradition. Beetham goes on to define allusion: Allusion: A literary device intentionally employed by an author to point a reader back to a single identifiable source, of which one or more components must be remembered and brought forward into the new context in order for the alluding text to be understood fully. An allusion is less explicit than a quotation, but more explicit than an echo. In this study, a linear marker of five words or less is considered to be an allusion. 88 One of the key aspects of allusion is the activation of both texts, the hypotext and the hypertext, in the reading. Even if it is not known exactly what the source of the allusion is the hypertext is still alluding to its precursor. It is then the job of the reader to either find the source text, guess what the source text was saying by the context of the hypertext, or simply Beetham, Echoes of Scripture. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 17, italics in original. 88 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 20. 86 87 24 be lost as to the meaning of the allusion. In that case it is still an allusion, but the reader will have to wonder what was actually meant without having any internal or external criteria to make a verifiable interpretation. Beetham also goes on to define echo: Echo: A subtle, literary mode of reference that is not intended for public recognition yet derives from a specific predecessor. An author’s wording may echo the precursor consciously or unconsciously and/or contextually or noncontextually. 89 Beetham continues beyond these three categories of dependence to discuss the category of parallel and its two manifestations, genealogical and analogical. In describing and defining a parallel between texts, Beetham simply quotes from Richard Altick. 90 Parallel is a category in which a given text that appears to be dependent on another identifiable text, but upon closer comparison cannot be confidently said to derive from that text because “neither internal nor external evidence is strong enough to make us confident” of dependence. 91 This is most often due to the fact that there are multiple precursors that agree with the text under review. There is no single section that the text agrees with more over the others that would allow locating a single source; they all share the same word agreement. According to T. L. Donaldson, the category genealogical parallel falls into two subcategories, strong genealogical parallel and weak genealogical parallel. 92 In describing Donaldson’s study, Beetham explains that a “strong” genealogical parallel “covers broader elements (such as a theme or doctrine) rather than a specific textual relationship, which is Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 24. Richard D. Altick and John J. Fenstermaker, The Art of Literary Research (4th rev. ed.; New York: W. W. Norton, 1993), 110-111; quoted in Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 24. 91 Richard D. Altick and John J. Fenstermaker, The Art of Literary Research, 110-111; quoted in Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 24. 92 T. L. Donaldson, “Parallels: Use, Misuse, and Limitations,” in The Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983), 198. 89 90 25 adequately covered by our categories of quotation, allusion, and echo. An example of a strong genealogical parallel between the OT and the NT is the doctrine of monotheism.” 93 Beetham goes on to describe a “weak” genealogical parallel as also including an organic relationship between texts, but that the element of direct influence is lacking in this case, and that “the organic relationship essential to a genealogical parallel exists in a diffuse, indirect form.” 94 There may be two texts that share a common traditional element that creates the “weak” genealogical parallel. Beetham offers this example: …both Paul (Rom. 4:1-25) and the author of the letter to the Hebrews (11:812) offer Abraham as a paradigm of faith for the believer to emulate. Yet almost certainly the two have employed the same OT narrative independently (Gen. 12-17). Paul at Romans 4 is not dependent on Hebrews 11, and viceversa. 95 As Beetham describes, this parallel is between two texts that seem parallel but neither one of them are dependent on the other. Each is dependent on the same tradition, and should be labeled accordingly to their dependence on that earlier text or tradition. In Beetham’s example, Rom. 4:1-25 would be dependent on Gen. 12-17 independent of Heb. 11:8-12, and the same can be described for Heb. 11:8-12. The next type of parallel that Beetham discusses is analogical parallel. Beetham offers the simple definition of this type of parallel as “when a strong, contextual similarity arises out of universal human experience.” He offers the similar use of “light” and “darkness” in the Gospel of John and the Qumran documents, and shows that this is a universal experience also found in the Chinese “yin and yang.” 96 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 25. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 26. 95 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 26. 96 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 26. 93 94 26 From this review of Beetham’s and other scholarly studies we can make the following list of the kinds of textual and literary dependence, with the most direct dependence being listed first, down to the least direct last: 97 1. Is the Dependence Lexical or Expositional? Then, a. Quotation b. Allusion c. Echo a. Contextual b. Non-Contextual d. Parallel a. Genealogical Parallel aa. Strong Genealogical Parallel ab. Weak Genealogical Parallel b. Analogical Parallel Not every one of these categories of dependence will be used in my study because these criteria attempt to account for the full range of intertextuality, whereas I will be focusing my attention specifically on textual dependence of the BM on the KJV. At the outset, my goal is to locate the places in the text of the BM that are literarily or textually dependent on the KJV of the J source. With this in mind, only those categories down to echo pertain to my study. Genealogical parallels are unnecessary because of reasons I will explain below, and analogical parallel is unnecessary to this study because those are parallels that are found outside of the KJV and are universal. 1.3 The Method of the Present Investigation With the comments made above on past research there are two major categories that I will use to discuss how the BM uses J: in Ic. Part I will define the categories of lexical dependence (Dimant’s compositional), and Ic. Part II expositional use of the past source. 98 Beetham provides a useful figure on p. 27 that illustrates how each of these work in his study. In discussing reliable criteria for locating intertextuality, George W. E. Nickelsburg noted that, “We need controls. Explicit citation is one. MacDonald’s benchmarks of density [i.e. the heavy use of a text within another text], order, distinctive traits, and interpretability, taken together, are another. They are a valuable tool for identifying conscious intertextuality and helping us to sort this out from other forms of literary and non-literary 97 98 27 a. Quotation a. Formal b. Informal b. Allusion c. Echo It is now necessary to provide clear definitions of these categories and how I will use them in my study. It is important to make clear what it is I mean when I apply these terms, so that it is clear where my study “intersects” with previous scholarship, and especially in how and why this study does not require some of the labels discussed above. In my study, a quotation is when a section of text in the BM 99 is dependent on an identifiable text in the KJV, either through the use of an explicit citation formula, or of six successive words or more. This can either be a formal or an informal quotation, the former being marked with a literary device, an “introductory formula,” 100 that introduces the text as a quotation and allows for this category to not need a word-count restriction. An informal quotation is when a section of the BM quotes directly from an identifiable source in the KJV of six words or more while not employing an introductory formula. An allusion is when a section of text in the BM is dependent on an identifiable source in the KJV for verbal and interpretive clues necessary to understand the section of the BM. An allusion will share vocabulary of five words or less, but will specifically hearken back to a source in the KJV known to the author and the audience he/she assumes. This requires that interdependence and interrelationship,” in “Tobit, Genesis, and the Odyssey: A Complex Web of Intertextuality,” in Dennis R. MacDonald, ed., Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, 54. Although MacDonald’s “controls” are similar to mine above, it is still necessary to explicate them further and define them more specifically. Other scholars, especially recently, have done just that. Their work is incorporated here. 99 For each of the categories I define here, “section of text in the BM” can mean a full verse, a partial verse, a phrase, or even simply a word, depending on the category and the given section under examination. The definition of the category itself and the later use of the category for specific verses should explain and clarify what I mean by the use of this phrase. 100 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Sources for Biblical Study 5; Missoula: SBL and Scholars’ Press, 1974), 7. See also Spawn, “As It Is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament. 28 the audience is aware of the other text. A good example of this is Ether 9:22, where Moroni alludes to Malachi 4:2 for the “Son of Righteousness.” If the assumed audience is not familiar with Mal. 4:2 the allusion is not heard and the reader is left wondering who the “Son of Righteousness” is. It is not required for every reader to recognize the allusion for it to be considered an allusion. With the evidence from above, the question of allusion leans more toward authorial intent and a close reading of the meaning of the text, whether the author has left markers that point to texts outside of that which he/she has written. An echo is when a section of text in the BM is dependent on an identifiable source in the KJV of five words or less, but does not require the reader to recall the source in the KJV to understand what the author of the BM means in the given section. An echo can either be intentional or unintentional, and it is impossible in most cases to determine if the author intended it or not. Further Criteria For Establishing Dependence I will not advance any criteria for establishing a quotation beyond what has already been discussed. It is especially unnecessary to advance a formal quotation any further because formal quotations are self-evident; the author has either pointed the reader to a specific text using a citation formula, or has invited the reader to find the quotation with enough words to support the discovery. It is also unnecessary for establishing an informal quotation due to high word count and the fact that JS and his contemporaries were deeply rooted in their work of producing the BM in the world of the KJV. 101 If there is a text in the KJV that is identifiable H. Grant Vest, a graduate student studying under Sidney B. Sperry said in his master’s thesis (“The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” [Master’s Thesis, unpublished, Brigham Young University, 1938], 3) the following about the dependence of the BM on the KJV: “Any consideration of these facts [the close literary/verbal relationship between the BM and the KJV in the lengthy quotes of Isaiah] admit of but one conclusion, namely, that the quotations of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon which are identical, or nearly so, with their parallels in the Authorized Version of the Bible were copied from that text. Otherwise this would present a literary phenomenon unparalleled 101 29 of six words or more that matches the given section of the BM, then the BM is likely quoting either formally or from that section. Basing his work on Hays, Beetham states that there are two tiers of evidence. When claiming dependence the first tier is the strongest evidence, and the second tier is supportive evidence of those criteria given in the first. The first criterion in the first tier is availability. Beetham asks, “was the alleged source available to the author? What is the scholarly consensus on the date of the source, and what is it for the alluding text? Does the alleged source historically precede the latter text?” 102 These questions are essential in a comparison of the BM to the KJV, because at the time of producing the BM the KJV was available to Joseph and his scribes. In studying the text of the BM I will only discuss the earliest manuscripts and first printed edition, including the original and printer’s manuscripts, both made in 1829, and the 1830 first printed edition. It is apparent that in this form the BM is a product of the 19th century. One might argue for a core being earlier than this dating, 103 but the BM’s heavy use of the KJV, especially of the New Testament, strongly argues for a dating of at least those sections dependent on the KJV compositionally to post-1611 CE. 104 There has been a general approach by many scholars in the past to make the claim that the BM is not dependent on the NT since that would make the text’s historical claims in all history, one beyond human experience. No extended argument is required to prove a point on which all experience is in agreement.” 102 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 28. 103 See Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 1987), 66-123. 104 The statement that the final form of the BM is a 19th century document should not be too surprising to scholars involved in Mormon studies. In a similar way, if we did not have any manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible or Greek New Testament and had only the 1611 translation of the KJV and subsequent printings, we would be forced to see the Bible as a 17th century document. We of course do have many textual witnesses of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, but we are not accorded that luxury with the BM. The translation of the 1611 KJV itself is a product of the 17th century. We should take these points into consideration when discussing the BM. 30 anachronistic. 105 Instead, it is sometimes argued that both texts are dependent on several passages in the HB or possibly several now lost shared sources. There are at least three problems with this claim. First, there are several examples in the BM that correspond to the NT where past scholarship has claimed that the two are dependent on the HB, but the specific sections of the BM and NT combine the exact same phrases of the exact same sources. Second, the translation into English of both texts is either exactly or very close to being the exact same. This does not indicate similar translation style of two separate translations, but points to the dependence of the BM on the KJV. Third, the BM not only uses the same combination of sources as specific NT passages, it also interprets those sources in a way that is resonant with Protestant Christian interpretations of those texts, rather than pre-Christian Israelite or Judean religious constructs. Therefore, in the context of the BM’s reliance on the KJV, we may answer a firm yes in response to the first question that Beetham poses. The KJV was available to JS at the time of dictation of the text of the BM. In large part we can assume that the majority of dependence on a biblical text in the BM is specifically on the KJV. 106 This assumption is not grounded in theory. It is, rather, grounded in detailed analysis of data, comparing the BM to several English translations of the Bible. By far the largest correspondence is with early 19th century American printings of the KJV. Keeping this in mind, it is helpful to note where the BM does agree with ancient manuscripts over that of the KJV, but it will be found that the majority of the time even the variants are either few and far between, or they are dependent on the KJV. John Tvedtnes’s work exemplifies this approach, especially in his article about the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob 5. See John A. Tvedtnes, “Borrowings from the Parable of Zenos,” in Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994), 373-426. Cf. Nicholas Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015), 1-30. 106 See H. Grant Vest’s statements above under footnote 101. 105 31 The second criterion Beetham discusses is word agreement or rare concept similarity. For this criterion Beetham asks, “does the proposed allusion share identical words with the alleged source text?” 107 He notes that in order for identical words to be suggestive in establishing dependence the more rare the vocabulary the more likely the dependence. It is even possible that one word can be an allusion if the given word is “rare and prominent enough.” This can also extend from a rare word to a rare concept. The third criterion requires there to be an essential interpretive link between the alluding text and its source. Beetham states that, “fundamental to allusion is that the alluding text depends upon the parent text for its marker to be understood fully. The author intends for the reader to recognize the marker, remember the original context, and connect one or more aspects of the predecessor to the new context in order for the latter to be understood. This interpretive link is fundamental to allusion and distinguishes it from echo.” 108 Without this essential data an allusion would be indistinguishable from echo. Beetham also describes this essential exegetical point as follows: Does the alleged source have a component that, when brought forward to the alluding text, unlocks the riddle of the alluding text? If it does not, then the proposed source fails to meet this criterion and the proposed allusion is disqualified in the case of that particular source. Another text may yet qualify as the source text, and so the search may continue. Or the proposed allusion is in fact an echo or merely a parallel, and requires reconsideration under those categories. 109 This is a decisive question in determining whether or not an intertext is an allusion, echo, or possibly even a parallel. This, along with the other two criteria, needs to be taken into account when comparing texts in the BM with the KJV. If we did not include these criteria, particularly the last of the three, it would be difficult to distinguish between allusion and echo. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 29. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 30. Emphasis in the original. 109 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 107 108 32 The second tier of evidence Beetham describes begins with the criterion of scholarly assessment. In this set of evidence Beetham asks, “have other scholars observed the proposed allusion? If so, what are their remarks concerning it? Did they classify it as an example of quotation, allusion, echo, parallel, or something comparable to our categories listed above?” 110 It will be found throughout this study that although this question works well while discussing dependence of the NT on the OT, in the field of BM scholarship influence from the KJV onto the BM has been viewed negatively, unless you are discussing only direct quotations in the BM that can be identified with texts traditionally dating to the pre-exilic period. As I argued in my essay on Malachi in the BM, 111 past scholars who have analyzed textual dependence of the BM on the KJV have often only researched this topic for apologetic (i.e. an antagonist makes a claim or statement that apologists see as attacking the faith and feel obligated to then make a counter-argument) or antagonistic reasons, rather than focusing their study on the text itself with no other reason than to understand it more fully. There are very few works that have set out to empirically establish dependence of the BM on the KJV outside of the long quotations of Isaiah, Malachi 3-4, Matthew 5-7, among others, 112 and therefore there are a limited number of studies we can utilize to meet this criteria for the entire text of the BM, let alone those specific places that have been influenced directly by the KJV of the J source. 113 Where there is commentary from past scholars on specific intertexts proposed in Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 32. Colby Townsend, “‘Behold, Other Scriptures I would that ye should write’: Malachi in the Book of Mormon,” unpublished. See https://www.academia.edu/6694609/Malachi_in_the_Book_of_Mormon (last accessed 7/14/14). 112 Nicholas J. Frederick, “Line Within Line”; and David P. Wright, “‘In Plain Terms that We May Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12-13,” in Brent Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 165-229. 113 Even then, many do not see the lengthy quotations as dependent on the KJV. For example, Gary L. Bishop argued that, “It is more likely that Joseph Smith went through the labor of orally translating each verse individually, perhaps with his scribe following in the English…It is highly plausible that Joseph Smith independently produced his own translation, and then elected to adopt the prevailing version whenever his translation was the same,” in Bishop, “The Tradition of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon” (unpublished Master’s thesis; Brigham Young University, 1974), 110-111. Not only is this the less likely case, the evidence simply does not support Bishop’s 110 111 33 this study, these will be used in examining and establishing dependence. Outside of that this study will attempt to break new ground. The next criterion in Beetham’s list is Old Testament and Jewish interpretive tradition. For the purposes of my study I will revise this to Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian interpretive traditions, as I have discussed the dependence of the BM on the post-1611 English form of the biblical text. Beetham asks the pertinent questions: “Does the proposed OT text already have a history of interpretive tradition within the later OT books, as well as within early and late Judaism? If so, does it shed light upon whether the NT text is an allusion?” 114 This is important for discovering where the dependence really lies. At times in the text of the BM it will appear as if the text is dependent on, for example, one of the books of the Pentateuch, but it is rather dependent on a NT quotation of that text. 115 This criterion helps us to establish whether or not there are other texts in the KJV that a given passage in the BM might be dependent on. This criterion will be helpful in Part III where the given section of J is described in its historical context, then how later Jewish and Christian texts reinterpreted the J source. The next criterion is other verified references from the same OT context in Colossians. With this criterion Beetham asks, “are there other allusions or echoes from the same OT context in the letter, whose probability has already been established?” 116 If we are able to locate theory. The rapid dictation of the BM argues against the idea that JS would have spent extra time going through and making his own translation (particularly when he was not working directly with the plates, but rather a stone in his hat), but there seems to be no reason for JS to make his own translation and then discard it other than for Bishop to have an argument against the prevailing theory prior to his thesis, what of Roberts, Sperry, and Vest had argued in the decades prior. If JS had made an independent translation of the Isaiah quotations of the BM, even though he could not translate in the sense that Bishop assumes, it is more likely he wouldn’t need to check his translation against the KJV. That translation would be just as authoritative or accurate as the rest of the text of the BM from JS and his contemporaries’ perspective. 114 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 32. 115 For example, 1 Ne. 15:18 and 22:9, 20 quote Acts 3:22-23, 25 for the promise of YHWH to Abraham and for the promise of YHWH through Moses that he would raise up a prophet like Moses. 116 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 33. 34 this same context then there may be dependence on a given text that has gone unnoticed before. Places in the BM that have been identified as a quotation, allusion, echo, or parallel will help to establish to what extent the author(s) of the BM knew that section of J. The next criterion is occurrence elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. In this regard Beetham asks, “Has Paul quoted, alluded to, or echoed the proposed OT passage in any of his other letters?” 117 We will find that this criterion will be extremely helpful in showing the BM’s dependence on specific verses in the KJV. I have already shown in my study of dependence of the BM on the KJV of Malachi that there are many more verses that are dependent on that text in the BM than had previously been acknowledged, and that through discovering the use of Mal. 3:1-2 and Mal. 4:1-2 it was apparent that these passages were utilized often throughout the text of the BM, not just in 3 Ne. 24 and 25. It will be important to gather all the data to show the extent of the influence each verse of the J source has had throughout the BM. The last criterion in the second tier is thematic coherence. I will quote all of Beetham’s explanation here as this criterion is heavily borrowed by Beetham from Richard Hays, but Beetham is redefining it as a criterion for allusion where Hays defines it as pertaining to echoes: Richard Hays offers this as one of his seven criteria for the detection and verification of an echo. I rather see it as a confirmatory criterion and want to combine it with a little of what Hays discusses under another criterion, “satisfaction.” My thematic coherence criterion asks, with Hays, “How well does the alleged [allusion] fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing? …Do the images and ideas of the proposed precursor text illuminate Paul’s argument?” “Does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse?” Does it “fit”? 118 Beetham then goes on to describe criteria for determining the existence of an echo by stating that “If a proposed allusion has failed to pass the criteria of the first tier, the proposed 117 118 Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 33. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 34. 35 text may still be tested to see if it qualifies as an echo.” 119 According to Beetham, if a proposed allusion fails to go through the first tier of criteria it must then pass through the second tier to determine if it is an echo. Echoes are very subtle, and Beetham concedes that “there is an element of intuition and judgment in the detection and verification of echo.” 120 In my study an echo will be similar to an allusion, but has passed through the two tiers and has been found to exclude the interpretative marker found in allusions. 121 (i.e. in Ether 9:22, “Son of Righteousness”). Conclusion Through a review of past scholarly literature on inner-biblical exegesis and intertextuality I have shown the necessity of having a firm and rigorous criteria in order to classify the different kinds of textual dependence. There have been numerous works in the past on this issue, but it has only been within the last thirty years that substantial steps forward have been made. Although many of those past studies did much to advance research in quotations and allusions in the biblical corpora, without strict methods for discussing the direction of influence there was little provided to advance the field. Future studies, including this one, need to utilize this past research in order to fully account for the intertextuality we find between the books of the Bible and post-biblical texts. The criteria as explicated above will be the working methodology of my study for locating intertextuality and textual dependence. Except for the recent work of Nicholas Frederick, John Hilton III, and Noel Reynolds, 122 there is a lack of defining methodology within studies of the BM’s use of the KJV. Future studies on the use of the KJV in the BM need to establish detailed Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 34. Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, 35. 121 Cf. Ether 9:22 and Mal. 4:2 (“Son of Righteousness” and “sun of righteousness”). 122 For descriptions of their work see Section 1.4 below. 119 120 36 methodologies and definitions of their terms at the beginning of their work, and discuss the full use of the KJV deeply embedded within the BM passages they study. 1.4 Past Studies on the Dependence of the BM on the KJV Contra to recent statements made by Royal Skousen, the editor of the Critical Text Project of the BM, the language of the KJV is the language of the BM. 123 Similar to Friedrich Delitsch’s classic assertion that there would be no Bible without Babel, 124 there would be no BM without the KJV. 125 Every single page of the earliest manuscripts and the original 1830 edition of the BM has numerous phrases and verbiage that come from both direct and indirect places within the KJV (both OT and NT). Although Royal Skousen and now Stanford Carmack have both devoted several essays to researching BM language as Early Modern English, it remains to be seen how accurate their research really is. Their overdependence on the Oxford English Dictionary as a historical cut off for when English speakers and writers could have used certain constructs is problematic at best. What needs to be done to further the field is to analyze sources that come from the northeastern United States from about 1800-1830 and whether or not they utilize the constructs that Skousen and Carmack claim could not have been native to JS’s linguistic heritage. These sources can include newspapers, diaries, travelogues, etc., anything that Philip Barlow notes, based on Kenneth Jenkins’s work, “more than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the Bible and the Book of Mormon.” Philip Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion (Updated Edition; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 28. 124 See Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1906). 125 This is not that strange of a claim when you take into account a similar statement made over the pulpit by Brigham Young. Young’s theory shows sensitivity to how different scriptural writings can be if they are written at different periods of time. He said, “…I will venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings,” in G. D. Watt and J. V. Long, Journal of Discourses, Vol. IX (Liverpool: George Q. Cannon, 1862), 311. 123 37 represents the common speech of that region would do well to advance the kinds of questions and issues that are being raised. The BM is infused with language and phrases from the KJV, as has been noted since it was published. Below I will describe some of who I think are the most important thinkers and commentators on the question of the KJV in the BM. There are many more that could be added to the list, but I have decided limit the list to these few in order to not go into unnecessary depth. Only 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 will be noted here. Early Approaches Alexander Campbell was the first to be acquainted with the contents of the BM and to respond at length to it in print. 126 Campbell was an important figure in the wider Restoration movement of the first half of the 19th century, and was the founder of the Disciples of Christ. He has been labeled “one of the country’s most notable theologians and preachers,” 127 and his comments on the BM have often been quoted in secondary literature. 128 Sidney Rigdon, an important figure in the development of early Mormonism, was originally a part of Campbell’s movement, but left his church as a convert to Mormonism. 129 Many of Campbell’s remarks were centered on comparing JS to other “impostors and delusions” 130 throughout history and on summarizing the narrative of the BM. He only made 126 His later pamphlet entitled Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon; with an Examination of its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation of its Pretences to Divine Authority, was originally published as “Delusions,” The Millennial Harbinger Vol. II, No. 2 (Monday, February 7th, 1831), 85-96. It was republished as 127 Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 89. 128 See Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 36-37; and Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 69-70; and Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 89-90. 129 Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 89. 130 Campbell, Delusions, 5. 38 a single comment on the use of the KJV in the BM. Arguing that he found many “Smithisms” throughout the BM, Campbell stated that “It is patched up and cemented with ‘And it came to pass’–‘I sayeth unto you’–‘Ye saith unto him’–and all the King James’ haths, dids and doths– in the lowest imitation of the common version…” 131 He also went on to argue that the BM “has not one good sentence in it, save the profanation of those sentences quoted from the Oracles of the living God,” 132 meaning the direct quotations from the KJV. Although Campbell should be noted for his more thoughtful approach and reasoned critique to the BM, 133 Campbell did little to offer examples beyond “haths, dids and doths,” let alone a framework to understand how the BM uses the KJV. In this respect Campbell’s study will do little in this study other than the fact that he was one of the first commentators to point out the dependence of the BM on the KJV. Eber D. Howe Eber D. Howe, founder, editor, and publisher of the Painesville Telegraph from 1822 to 1835, 134 said at the beginning of his book Mormonism Unvailed that he undertook the work reluctantly, 135 but was convinced by friends to write and publish it. His work has turned out to Campbell, Delusions, 15. Italics in the original. Campbell, Delusions, 15. 133 Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 89. 134 Eber D. Howe, Autobiography and Recollections of a Pioneer Printer: Together with Sketches of the War of 1812 on the Niagara Frontier (Painesville, OH: Telegraph Steam Printing House, 1878), 26-27. 135 Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed: Or, A Faithful Account of that Singular Imposition and Delusion, from its Rise to the Present Time. With Sketches of the Characters of its Propagators, and a Full Detail of the Manner in which the Famous Golden Bible was Brought Before the World. To which are added, Inquiries into the Probability that the Historical Part of the Said Bible was Written by One Solomon Spaulding, More than Twenty Years Ago, and by him Intended to have Been Published as a Romance (Painesville: Printed and Published by the Author, 1834), “Advertisement” at the beginning of the book. 131 132 39 be one of the most influential early works on Mormonism, and an incredibly important document for understanding the earliest years of Mormonism. In discussing the use of King James English in the BM, Howe stated that “The whole work is written in a miserable attempt to imitate the style of King James the first…” 136 Statements such as this one show the strong bias that Howe had against the BM, but this should not distract from the comparatively sophisticated approach Howe takes through much of the book when discussing the use of the KJV in the BM. He notes that theologically he was not aware that the style of the KJV was better for revealing words from Heaven than that of the present day English he and JS shared. 137 He points out that in certain places where it would seem that the BM is quoting the OT it is actually quoting the NT. For example, he discusses 1 Ne. 10, where Nephi presents Lehi’s vision of John the Baptist in words that are seemingly dependent on Isa. 40. As Howe points out, it is “not so much on account of the prophecy as the language, in which he uses to express it,” 138 because upon closer review it is apparent that Lehi’s prophecy is actually dependent on Matthew’s and John’s gospels. When Nephi quotes Lehi’s prophecy in 1 Ne. 10:8, the use of the phrase “he should go forth and cry in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight,” is exactly the same (excluding the second “and”) as it is found in parallel passages in Matt., Mark, and Luke. The use of the phrase “and he is mightier than I” in the next line confirms that it is, as Howe argued, Matt. that the BM is here dependent upon. For the phrase “there standeth one among you whom ye know not…whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose” we must turn to John 1:26-27. Howe was ahead of his time in pointing out the use of the KJV in the BM where it was not pointed out in the text itself, Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 23. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 23-24. 138 Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 28. 136 137 40 especially considering the fact that he simply found these in reading the BM. Today it not only takes a rigorous methodology to locate these kinds of intertexts, but it also requires at the very least a concordance or a word searchable computer program. Although writing in a polemical style against the BM and Mormonism in general, Howe was able to show early on, and in a convincing way, that there were numerous places in the BM that were dependent on the KJV. It was definitely easier for Howe to recognize dependence because of his openness to viewing the BM critically. I will show throughout this review of literature that many studies have attempted to argue some of the most obvious places of dependence of the BM on the Bible away. Howe should at the very least be commended for his thorough research. There were many more places in his treatment that dealt with this topic, but the above is a good example of the accuracy of his work on the KJV in the BM. 139 B. H. Roberts B. H. Roberts has been called the “defender” of Mormonism. 140 His voluminous work on the BM is unrivaled in Mormon studies (although Brant Gardner might be a close second in quantity), and he spent his life writing about, speaking in, and serving the LDS church as a historian and leading authority. His several volumes arguing for the historical reality of the BM have been cited in numerous studies on the BM since their publication. In the early 1920s Roberts was asked to respond to a young Mormon’s questions about some problems he had with the BM. The young Mormon, William E. Riter, first wrote to 139 140 Cf. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 38-39, 49-50, 63-64, 131. Truman G. Madsen, Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980). 41 James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but Talmage gave the responsibility over to Roberts to answer them. 141 The questions themselves came from a non-Mormon friend of Riter, and included topics such as the large variety of Native American languages as compared to the belief, based on the BM, that one Hebrew family founded this part of the world; historical anachronisms such as the horse, silk, swords, and scimitars in America during BM times; and the BM claims a knowledge of steel ca. 600 BCE when there is no historical record that indicates such a metal existed among the Israelites at that time. 142 These questions led Roberts to a series of critical studies on the BM that have caused a lot of controversy among historians as to the question of Roberts’ faith in the BM toward the end of his life. These studies were not published for fifty years after Roberts’s death. 143 They reflect not only the questions Roberts was grappling with, but also the sincerity in which he wanted to provide faithful and rigorous answers for the future generations of Mormonism. Whether or not Roberts had faith in the historical assumptions of the BM is not relevant to the current study. More importantly, I will briefly describe Roberts’ approach to understanding the parallels between the BM and the KJV. During the years of 1922-1927 Roberts used much of his time spent researching possible explanations of the origins of the BM in a manuscript titled “A Book of Mormon Study.” 144 In his research he commented on the use of the bible in the BM to some extent. For example, in describing the BM’s statements about the birth of Jesus he found that “Matthew and Z[e]chariah, then, could well be thought of as furnishing material for the Book of Mormon signs of the Birth of Messiah.” 145 He noted the awkwardness of the use of Zechariah in 3 Ne. Brigham D. Madsen, ed. Studies of the Book of Mormon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 45. Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 36. 143 Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon. 144 Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 149. 145 Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 237. 141 142 42 1:15-21, that the Zechariah passage more easily reads, in a Mormon context, as a prophecy of Jesus’s second coming, not as a prophecy about his birth. When Roberts continued reading in 3 Nephi he found the descriptions of the destruction of Nephite cities in chapters 8-10 to be similarly dependent on the NT, particularly on Matt. 27. 146 From this perspective Roberts could make the statement that, “with these things as suggestions as to signs for Messiah’s birth and death and resurrection, and one of conceded vivid, and strong and constructive imaginative powers to work them all out, need not be regarded as an unthinkable procedure and achievement.” 147 It was not unthinkable to Roberts that JS could have had the imaginative capability to take the passages in the NT and elaborate on them and create the descriptions of the destruction after Jesus’s death in the BM. 148 Although these statements differ widely from Roberts’s earlier apologetic work, 149 Roberts was attempting to deal with new questions posed to him in the early 1920s, questions he felt needed answers. The context had changed for him, and he was more exhaustive in his analysis in his later writings about the dependence of the BM on the KJV. In his earlier writings Roberts looked specifically at the question of the KJV Isaiah in the BM and came up with the theory, later adopted by Sidney Sperry and others, that JS and scribe worked mostly from the KJV in copying the Isaiah chapters but translated from the plates where the two texts varied. 150 Roberts recognized the major influence the KJV played in the production of the BM both in his early writings and later. It was in his later writings, though, that he became open to questions like the influence of the KJV NT on the BM. Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 238. Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 238. 148 See also Roberts’s discussion of “The Imaginative Mind of Prophet Joseph Smith: Evidence of its Existence– Examples of its Force” in Madsen, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 243-250. 149 See especially his lengthy discussion of possible literary influences on the BM in Roberts, New Witnesses for God: III The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1909), 425-460. 150 Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 438-439. 146 147 43 Sidney Sperry Sperry completed graduate work at the University of Chicago in the 1920s. His thesis looked at “The Text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 151 and included sixteen pages of introductory material (however, roughly the first six pages were block quotations from the History of the Church), followed by sixty-one pages of a comparison of the MT, KJV, and BM texts of the Isaiah chapters that are found in the BM that vary from the KJV. The remaining six pages were a brief analysis of Sperry’s comparison, and a summary of the findings in his thesis. Sperry’s thesis was not only limited by time, 152 and the fact that manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls had not yet been discovered, but Sperry also made no attempt to analyze whether the BM variants with the KJV were based on a Hebrew Vorlage, or it they were based on the English of the KJV. He only briefly notes that the MT supports the KJV readings. 153 At the end of his thesis Sperry suggests that, “many more interesting and pertinent facts pertaining to the three versions of that part of the text of Isaiah under consideration could be brought out. A more intensive study would reveal them in detail but lack of time prevents it being done in this study. Further research on this subject is therefore desirable and would no doubt be very profitable for the time expended.” 154 One would assume, then, that with more time Sperry would be able to accomplish this kind of study himself. I will briefly describe the lack of this kind of study in his later writings, and suggest that this hole stems from his supervising role of his student’s, H. Grant Vest, master’s thesis on the topic. H. Grant Vest 151 Sidney Brenton Sperry, “The Text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon” (unpublished Master’s Thesis; The University of Chicago, 1926). 152 Sperry, “The Text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 81. 153 Sperry, “The Test of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 79. 154 Sperry, “The Text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 81. 44 Vest studied under the tutelage of Sidney Sperry at BYU during the 1930s. He continued Sperry’s work on the lengthy quotations of Isaiah in the BM, and agreed with both Roberts and Sperry that the best explanation of the quantity of correspondences between the KJV of Isaiah and Isaiah in the BM was that JS and his scribes took out a bible and copied the text, making corrections to be more in line with what they argued JS saw on the plates. Vest was more forceful than many past students of the text in his argument that the BM was dependent on the KJV for the Isaiah translations. From his experience, “the quotations of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon which are identical, or nearly so, with their parallels in the Authorized Version of the Bible were copied from that text.” 155 Although this statement was not substantially different from what Roberts and Sperry had argued before him, his reasoning for making the argument was. He said that if the Isaiah portions of the BM were not copied from the KJV, then “this would present a literary phenomenon unparalleled in all history, one beyond human experience. No extended argument is required to prove a point on which all experience is in agreement.” 156 Vest fully recognized that this heavy dependence on Isaiah was a problem for the BM, particularly in its use of Isaiah chapters that post-date 600 BCE, and in a similar way to Sperry’s work argued that because the BM claims to be a copy of a version of Isaiah pre-600 BCE then the BM can be an important witness to the textual history of the book of Isaiah. 157 For Vest the claims made by both the text of the BM and by JS about the dating of the Isaiah portions were taken at face value (although called “objective means” by Vest 158) and are assumed as reliable for a historical-critical approach to understanding both the BM and the book of Isaiah. Vest, “The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 3. Vets, “The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 3. 157 Vest, “The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 4, 14-15. 158 Vest, “The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” 14. 155 156 45 Although not conclusive, I would like to suggest a possible reason Sperry never returned to the “profitable” study he outlines at the end of his thesis. First, Vest’s study was thorough, going into much more detail than Sperry’s, as well as taking Biblical scholarship of the time more seriously. Second, the implications of Vest’s approach might have suggested to Sperry that the issue was much different than he anticipated. Rather than doing a full study himself, he had a series of publications that only lightly touched on the issues, and functioned more as a response to specific critics of the unity of Isaiah rather than exploring the text for its own sake. The title of this later short study seems to be echoing Vest’s thesis: “The “Isaiah Problem” in the Book of Mormon.” 159 Although the other chapters share similar titles, none of the others include quotation marks around the “problem” like this chapter does. Admittedly, the evidence is not conclusive, but I cannot help noticing that Sperry never completed this study himself. Approaches of the Last Half of the 20th Century Hugh Nibley Nibley wrote extensively on the BM throughout his career, and several of his collected volumes discussed in detail or mentioned in passing the influence of the bible or KJV on the BM. I will briefly describe some of his notes in a few of the volumes in his collected works on these connections, and how he understood these connections. In his book Since Cumorah, originally published in 1967 and the second edition in 1988, Nibley set aside an entire chapter to explore the Bible in the BM. 160 He briefly discussed the issue as brought up by several critics of the BM, the problems of the NT in the BM, and the 159 160 Sperry, Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, 73-97. Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 111-134. 46 idea that many NT phrases actually went back to Mesopotamian texts, before jumping into a description of the problem of having the KJV text of Isaiah in the BM. He therefore focused only on the question of Isaiah, in particular Isa. 48 and 49 (2 Ne. 20 and 21), and attempted to show that because the BM varied so much from the MT and LXX, as well as the MT and LXX diverging from each other, the original text of Isa. 48 and 49 had obviously been corrupted. In general Nibley argued that the BM was more original than the MT and LXX, and that the two latter versions of the HB cause confusions in reading certain verses in either of those editions because they are missing important clauses that the BM still has intact. 161 Nibley spent the majority of the rest of the chapter exploring the question of the authorship of Isaiah in biblical scholarship. After briefly summarizing the research contemporary to his time, he turned to the work of Otto Eissfeldt 162 to show that the question of authorship was anything but over. According to Nibley, “the trouble with dating any part of Isaiah, as Eissfeldt points out, is that we have nothing really definite to go on.” 163 Using the studies of Eissfeldt and Jones, 164 Nibley questions our ability to date Deutero and Trito-Isaiah (which he awkwardly accepts after pages of claiming unity of authorship) with any accuracy, and in the end argues that whatever period they date to, the original core of Isaiah would have included parts of chapters 40-55 and 56-66. To Nibley, this was likely what was on the brass plates version of Isaiah, without many of the later changes to the text. 165 From his perspective, “the indications are that a thorough study of the rapidly changing Isaiah problem may well leave the Book of Mormon in a very strong position indeed.” 166 Nibley was probably very Nibley, Since Cumorah, 117. Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3rd edition; Tubingen: Mohr, 1964). 163 Nibley, Since Cumorah, 123. 164 Douglas Jones, “The Traditio of the Oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem,” ZAW 67 (1955), 226-246 165 Nibley, Since Cumorah, 125. 166 Nibley, Since Cumorah, 133. 161 162 47 surprised, then, with how research on this question turned out during the last half of the twentieth century. 167 In his book The Prophetic Book of Mormon, Nibley pointed out how the influence of the NT on the BM was, up until the time of writing in 1953-1954, the single strongest argument against the authenticity of the BM. 168 He argued that all of the phrases and ideas from the NT that influenced the BM are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, and therefore obviously these claims are wrong. 169 Throughout this section of his essay, 170 Nibley constantly compared the Dead Sea Scrolls to the BM, and the poor treatment of the two by some scholars, Solomon Zeitlin, for example, apparently had difficulty reading the Rule of the community (Nibley called it the Manual Discipline, its name in the early 1950s). 171 He argued that some uneducated Jew must have written the document in the medieval period. This allowed Nibley to argue at the time that the trajectory of BM research would then be similar to research on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The problem is that Nibley’s writing was over sixty years ago. Much has changed in our understanding of the scrolls found in the Judean desert from that time until now and the arguments that there were clearly ideas thought to be unique to the NT in the Dead Sea Scrolls have been found to be very weak. 172 All of the evidence continues to point toward the NT having an incredible amount of influence on the BM. 173 It would be fascinating to know Nibley’s Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 78. 169 Nilbey quotes the work of Hilel Ragaf as critical in this way. Hilel Ragaf, “The Origin of the Religious Sect of Mormons” Vorwarts (26 April 1953). 170 Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 77-83. 171 Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 79. 172 This is particularly true for the earlier arguments about the Messiah in the scrolls. Scholars now agree that the sectarian community of the Dead Sea Scrolls were expecting at least two Messiahs, and the expectation was very different than what is found in the NT. 173 For further discussion of BM sources, see Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 193-218. 167 168 48 Wesley P. Walters Walters wrote a Master’s thesis at Covenant Theological Seminary in 1981 that looked primarily at the KJV of the HB and its use in the BM, 174 but, as I will also need to do in Section 3 below, out of necessity also commented on the influence of the NT on the BM. Throughout the thesis Walters noted the influence of the KJV in thought, lexicon, and structure on the BM. He recognized that there are texts that are explicitly quoted from the Bible, while others take influence without a note. He assumed throughout his research that the BM was JS’s own composition, and sought to show in detail how JS utilized the text of the KJV during the production of his new text. He paid close attention to prior scholarship and made a positive attempt at furthering that field of research, and in my opinion much of what he did withstood early critiques of his research. Walters’s thesis argued, that two-thirds of the names in the BM were derived from the KJV, most from the OT and some anomalously from the NT. 175 The language of the BM is thoroughly KJV, but because there were many mistakes in the number of endings of words (e.g. the use of “you” [object] as the subject in a sentence, or mixing the plural “ye” and the singular “thou” in the same sentence), 176 and the common lapse into 19th century English, Walters concluded that the use of the KJV English in the BM was imply JS’s attempt at imitating the authoritative language of that Bible. 177 The fact that NT language was blended into sections of the BM, particularly those prior to the NT period, also lent support to the suggestion that the composition of the BM originated with JS. 178 Wesley P. Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon.” Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 163. 176 Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 30. 177 Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 163. 178 Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 164. 174 175 49 In the final section of his thesis Walters lists several the following discoveries based on his research. 179 First, half of the Isaiah verses are identical to the KJV. Second, JS often kept the italics of the KJV, as well as the inaccurate KJV rendering of many words and phrases in the Hebrew. Third, because there is so much that ties back to the KJV in the BM, JS must have had a Bible out and open in front of him for much of the dictation period. This is especially necessary for the correct spelling of lengthy names, word order, and sentence structure. Since this detail was not mentioned by any of the witnesses it is possible that JS could have had other notes or materials when he composed the BM. Fourth, where the BM differs in exact wording with a corresponding biblical text we can conclude that these alterations were made to suit whatever desire or purpose JS saw fit at the time. This is supported by the fact that the earliest manuscripts do not support the majority of the alterations. Fifth, the fact that the same KJV verse is used in different places in the BM, and that it has been altered differently in each place, argues that there was no Semitic text underlying those BM verses, but rather that the variants originate with JS. Sixth, it appears that JS didn’t make as many changes to the biblical text early on as he did later. In the later sections, as note in Chris Eccel’s study of the block quotations of Isaiah, 180 JS would make major changes to the text as he started a block quotation, and then as he went would get tired and make less and less changes until the remaining chapters had little to no changes. Seventh, the variants in the BM quotations of Isaiah do not follow the general pattern of the ancient manuscripts Isaiah. In those manuscripts variants are scattered, not clustered in several verses the way the BM has them. Eighth, many of the changes made to the block quotations of Isaiah make little to no sense or are simply inaccurate. The Red Sea is placed 250 miles away Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 164-166. Chris Eccel, “Biblical Variant Readings in the Book of Mormon,” accessed on http://www.gptouchstone.org/variants.html (Last accessed 4/25/2016). 179 180 50 from its actual location with an insertion in 2 Ne. 19:1 (Isa. 9:1). Ninth, sometimes JS tried to correct the text but in the corrections it is apparent he didn’t understand the biblical verse. Tenth, JS claimed that there were plain and precious truths of the Bible that had been taken out. In the production of the BM JS didn’t restore these, so they would be left for his revision of the Bible the next year. 181 Finally, JS’s familiarity with the Bible had not been recognized fully prior to Walters’s thesis. JS quoted from a specific collection of verses often, 182 suggesting that he knew them well and used them in constructing his theological perspectives. While many issues could be taken with Walters’s conclusions, or some of his lines of reasoning, his study was an important step forward, even if early reviewers brushed it to the side. Walters was more open to finding anachronisms within the text so he was able to locate verses from the NT and post-exilic Hebrew texts (like Malachi) that had a traceable impact on the BM. From that point of view Walters had a much larger, and more accurate, data set to work from in his theory about the composition of the BM. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusions is irrelevant to the present discussion. Walters made a major contribution to studies on the KJV in the BM. John Tvedtnes Tvedtnes has written numerous studies looking at the question of the influence of the Bible on the BM. In much of his writing the overarching theme has been that while the BM authors have definitely utilized biblical texts, this has only been mediated through their familiarity with those texts they had available to them in their own historical contexts, i.e. what is assumed to be on the Brass Plates. Thus, many of the variants between the BM and KJV 181 Walters failed to mention how the BM references the works of supposedly lost scripture from Israelite prophets like Zenos and Zenock, or a lost prophecy where Joseph of Egypt actually prophesied about JS himself. 182 Isa. 11:11-12; 49:22-23; 52:7-10; and Micah 5:8-9. Cf. Walters, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon,” 166. 51 texts of Isaiah are based on the BM having access to a more ancient source than JS had available to him in the KJV. In a similar vein, verses throughout the BM that might at first seem to have been influenced by the NT, in fact took portions of the HB and blended them in ways similar to what the later NT authors would do. To Tvedtnes it was also possible that both the BM and the NT had a similar third source that is no longer extant, or that the source itself is found in the BM. This is the case in Tvedtnes’ essay, “Borrowings from the Parables of Zenos,” aptly titled to denote his argument that Paul and several other early Jewish and Christian authors were familiar with Zenos’ writings rather than the other way around. 183 To do this Tvedtnes argues that the Parable of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 is a self-contained narrative, and that this means it is original and has priority over the NT texts it has parallels with. 184 Tvedtnes’ criteria are incredibly problematic, and do not fully deal with the historical or textual evidence. Tvedtnes’ research is unique compared to many of the BM scholars I will comment on here because he is fully aware of the connections between the NT and the BM. Rather than acknowledging the influence of the NT on the BM Tvedtnes finds creative, yet not compelling, ways to respond to a specific group of critics of the BM. It would have been more helpful to have as the point of departure the text itself instead of looking at the issue specifically in response to those who were ideologically opposed to him. Kenneth Jenkins Jenkins was a non-Mormon scholar who knew John Hilton, a professor at Brigham Young University. He assisted Hilton with preparing and writing computer programs so that Hilton 183 184 John A. Tvedtnes, “Borrowings from the Parable of Zenos,” Tvedtnes, “Borrowings from the Parable of Zenos,” 374. 52 could perform his word-print analysis and other studies on the BM. 185 Although it took several years to complete, Jenkins produced a large 3-volume computer print-off that compared similar phrases between the full texts of both the BM and the KJV. 186 The print-off itself only remains in one known copy. Jenkins’ project has never really been used to closely analyze the dependence of the BM on the KJV, at least not outside of the short comments made about it in Philip Barlow’s magisterial book, Mormons and the Bible. 187 This is unfortunate because this resource has been available for over thirty years and in that time it could have been utilized to understand better the relationship between the BM and the KJV. David P. Wright Wright’s research has been some of the most underrated on the question of the KJV’s influence on the BM, partially because much of it is simply remembered as being part of the “Book of Mormon wars” 188 of the early 1990s and therefore written off as not interesting or out of date. 189 Wright wrote several essays looking specifically at the question of the influence of the KJV on the BM, and JS’s appropriation of the Bible during the production of the BM. John L. Hilton and Ken Jenkins, “All Book of Mormon References by Author and Literary Form: A Full Listing of Book of Mormon References by Author and Literary Form” (FARMS Preliminary Reports; Provo: FARMS, 1983); and John L. Hilton, “On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship,” BYU Studies 30, no. 3 (1990), 1-17; and Hilton, “Wordprints and the Book of Mormon,” in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 1992), 221-226. 186 Kenneth Jenkins, “Common Phrases Between the King James Version and the Book of Mormon” (3 Vols.; Provo: Farms, 1983). 187 Barlow, Mormons and the Bible, 28-29. 188 Cf. Massimo Introvigne, “The Book of Mormon Wars: A Non-Mormon Perspective,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5 (2), 1-25. 189 This has been explicitly stated on social media or to the author by a small handful of Mormon scholars who write on the BM. 185 53 To do this he looked at the use of the KJV in Alma 12-13 in one essay, 190 and at the copied Isaiah passages throughout the BM in another. 191 I will briefly describe the former study. In his essay looking at the use of Hebrews in Alma 12-13, Wright went beyond observations of authorship in an attempt to show his faith community how JS interacted with his scriptures, the KJV. He wanted to provide an opportunity for his audience to learn about their scriptural heritage despite conclusions of authorship, and was in essence providing a new kind of apologetic informed by his academic research. 192 This is especially seen in Wright’s statement that, “one of the points I hope will be borne out is that Smith is as interesting and religiously relevant when understood to be the author of the Book of Mormon as when he is considered translator.” 193 Wright shows how Alma 13 relies on Heb. 7:1-4 for its depiction of priesthood, 194 and how Alma 12-13 was influenced in various ways by Heb. 3-4 and 7. 195 He analyzes Alma 12 and concludes that its author invented a citation and masked its source. The citation comes from Heb. 3, and Wright argues that this is a good example of JS’s creative reworking of the Bible. 196 Wright also argues that the description of Adam and Eve in Alma 12 is dependent on Hebrews. 197 Wright correctly argues that any argument on the influence of the Bible on the BM must be grounded on the text itself, and that evidence must take priority in compositional David P. Wright, ““In Plain Terms that We May Understand”: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12-13,” in Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 165-229. 191 David P. Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 157-234; and David P. Wright, “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 31, No. 4 (Winter 1998), 181-206. 192 Wright, “In Plain Terms that We May Understand,” 166. 193 Wright, “In Plain Terms that We May Understand,” 166. 194 Wright, “In Plain Terms that We May Understand,” 167. 195 Wright, “In Plain Terms that We May Understand,” 167-184. 196 Wright, “In Plain Terms that we May Understand,” 181. 197 Wright, “In Plain Terms that we May Understand,” 196-197. 190 54 judgments. 198 Doing so allows Wright to notice the similarity between the composition of the BM, JS’s revision of the Bible, and the Book of Abraham. 199 He postulates that JS’s use of the KJV during the production of the BM could have been the impetus for the revision of the Bible only months after the BM was published. Noel Reynolds Reynolds wrote an essay in 1990 exploring what kind of Genesis text was used throughout the BM in an attempt to discover what was on the Brass Plates that Nephi took out of Jerusalem. 200 To do this he compared key phrases from the Book of Moses and JS’s revision of the Bible against the BM and the KJV, 201 starting with a list of similar terms, phrases, and concepts that he found in both the BM and the Book of Moses. That list was then compared with the KJV of the OT, and anything that was found in the OT was then taken out of the list. The next step was to examine whether or not the similarities between the BM and the Book of Moses within the list were independent. In doing so Reynolds created criteria for establishing dependence, a first in BM studies. His criteria worked a little backwards when compared to methodologies of the time in biblical studies, but it was an important step forward. He argued the following seven criteria: (1) the greater the similarity in terms, the less likely the two are independent; (2) the more precise the similarities, the less likely the two are independent; (3) the more deliberately shaped the repetition, the less likely the two are independent; (4) the more similar the context, the less likely the two are independent; (5) Wright, “In Plain Terms that we May Understand,” 207. Wright, “In Plain Terms that we May Understand,” 211. 200 Noel B. Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, Volume 2: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday 27 March 1990 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 136-173. 201 Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” 137. 198 199 55 authorial awareness of a brass plates source, the less likely the two are independent; (6) the more distinctive the terminology, the less likely the two are independent; and (7) similar terminology in the NT or OT, the less likely the two are independent. 202 Reynolds’s criteria are very problematic. He never explains the difference between greater similarity and more precise similarity in criteria one and two. Does greater mean quantity of word and letter agreement, or context, motif, or thought? He also does not define what he means by more precise. Is that supposed to point to a higher connection between word and letter agreement, or something else? For criterion three Reynolds never explains how the author’s deliberate shaping of the repetition is to be determined, and one wonders if this is a question of historical criticism, and possibly about the intent of the author. He also does not explain who the author is, but it seems obvious throughout Reynolds’s essay that the author would be the assumed author in the given section of text, so how are we supposed to determine if that author deliberately shaped the repetition? While Reynolds’ criteria appear to be rigorous and useful in explaining the range of connections between texts, when they are actually applied it becomes apparent that they are not as useful as one would hope. In comparison with the criteria of Michael Fishbane, Richard Hays, and others contemporary to Reynolds’ writing I have to disagree with Reynolds’ statement that his group of parallels between the BM and the Book of Moses are, “highly persuasive on the basis of criteria ordinarily used by scholars evaluating possible sources of texts.” His criteria are not only dissimilar to approaches contemporary to his writing, but they are not as well defined. Besides the problem of clearly defined terms, Reynolds’ criteria do not successfully lead to his conclusions. He limits comparisons to exclude the NT, and although he makes one 202 Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” 138. 56 exception by noting Acts 4:12 and Moses 6:52, 203 he fails to note several connections with the NT that would explain the language of both the BM and the Book of Moses. 204 There are several other examples that could be made to show the failings of Reynolds’ methodology, but his paper was a step in the right direction. By creating a list of criteria Reynolds’ made the importance of defining approaches as an essential part of analyzing intertextuality in the BM. Recent Approaches Brant Gardner 205 Brant Gardner has been one of the most prolific authors on the subject of the BM since B. H. Roberts. He has published a six-volume commentary on the entire text of the BM, 206 a book on the process of translating the BM, 207 and a recent volume arguing for the book as history. 208 The commentary includes several notes on the influence of the KJV on the BM that 203 Reynolds, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” 140. Acts 4:12 also influenced Mosiah 3:17, but Reynolds’ fails to note this on pages 140, and 142 where he discusses Mosiah 3:17. 204 For example, Reynolds’ notes on page 140 the connection between Moses 6:67 and Alma 13:7, 9, but these concepts are ultimately derived from Heb. 7. His example of Moses 4:4 on page 143 also shows influence from 2 Tim. 2:26, as well as the connection he makes with Alma 12:11 and 40:13. Both of these passages are derived from 2 Tim. 2:26. The use of later terminology to describe Satan as the “father of all lies,” found in Moses 4:4, 2 Ne. 2:18, Ether 8:25, and 2 Ne. 9:9 as noted by Reynolds (p. 142), is also evidence of later influence. 205 Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1: First Nephi (6 vols.; Draper: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 15, 147, 191-193, 213, 235, 280, 411-413; Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 2: Second Nephi through Jacob (Draper: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 152-155, 207, 220 nt. 5, 266, 301, 313. 206 Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vols.; Draper: Greg Kofford Books, 2007). 207 Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011). 208 Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015). 57 are inconsistent with one another, 209 and are never brought together in a systematic form. The book on translation deals a little more directly with the influence of the KJV, and the topic is not even mentioned, as far as I can tell, in the book on the BM as history. I will respond briefly to Gardner’s book on translation because he engages more directly with the topic there. First, I would like to note that most of Gardner’s conclusions on the KJV’s influence on the BM are sound in his book on translation. For instance, on page 193, Gardner states, It is therefore no surprise that Joseph Smith would use a vocabulary and style that \"spoke\" like sacred texts. However, the influence of the King James Bible goes further than simple stylistics. The specifics of the KJV quite clearly influenced the formation of many sentences and paragraphs in the Book of Mormon where the plate text could not have supported that particular translation. Anyone can compare a simple couple of paragraphs of the Book of Mormon with the KJV and see the reliability of Gardner’s statement. As an example, 1 Ne. 10:7-10 informally quotes portions of John 1:26-29. 210 This is not a singular case, as literally hundreds, and probably even thousands, of like examples surface once a detailed comparison of the BM and the KJV has been completed. It is not the conclusions that Gardner comes to that need correction; rather, I will comment on some of the details of his explanation and the sources of specific BM passages. On page 193, Gardner discusses how the influence of the KJV answers the use of the phrase “jot or tittle” from 3 Ne. 1:25. The terms “jot” and “tittle” only appear together in Matt. 5:18, and nowhere else in the biblical corpus. This would be the one source that 3 Ne. 1:25 would have been influenced by. Gardner uses Smith’s Bible Dictionary to explain that “jot” In some instances where it is apparent that Malachi influenced the BM Gardner argues that it could not be Malachi because it was written ca. 450 BCE, and therefore could not have been on the brass plates (see Second Witness, 2:331). In other instances Gardner recognizes the influence of Malachi on the BM and does not even mention his earlier argument that it would not have been on the brass plates (see Second Witness, 2:356-257). 210 Gardner notes this similarity but assigns the dependence of the BM verses to Mark 1:2 and 7 rather than John 1:27. 209 58 is the English form of the Greek “iota,” the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. Iota is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew yod, which is in turn equivalent to the English ‘y’. As Smith's Bible Dictionary says, “It is used metaphorically to express the minutest thing.” 211 Gardner then turns to Easton's Bible Dictionary, which defines “tittle” as “a point...the minute point or stroke added to some letters of the Hebrew alphabet to distinguish them from others which they resemble; hence, the very least point.” 212 Gardner then describes how it might have been possible for the Nephites to use “jot” due to the possibility that it ties back to the Hebrew yod, but states that “tittle” could not have been known to the Nephites. In his own words, Gardner states, The reference to the jot might have been part of the plates if it referred to the Hebrew yod and if the Nephites retained sufficient knowledge of Hebrew writing that it could be a useful metaphor. However, the tittle is a visual coding for vowels, a system developed after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem. Thus tittle could not be a literal translation of a lexeme in the Nephite vocabulary. The presence of this phrase is due to the KJV model. 213 I agree with Gardner’s statement that the use of “jot” and “tittle” is dependent on the KJV, and would therefore arise out of Joseph Smith’s 19th century Christian milieu, as he was “swimming in the sea of [King James] scripture.” 214 There are several problems with the details of Gardner’s analysis, though. First, before bringing up the lexical issues of having either “jot” or “tittle” in the BM, the fact that both of them are found together, and that we have only one source–a very popular and widespread source–for these terms together, would lead to the conclusion that 3 Ne. 1:25 is dependent on Matt. 5:18. Even if the Nephites used the terms “jot” and “tittle,” it is unlikely that they would happen to use them together the same way that William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible: GospeLink 2001 CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), s.v. “jot”; as quoted in Gardner, The Gift and Power, 193. 212 M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1903), s.v. “tittle”; as quoted in Gardner, The Gift and Power, 193. Ellipses mine. 213 Gardner, The Gift and Power, 193. Emphasis in the original. 214 See Paul Han, Swimming in the Sea of Scripture: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in 2 Corinthians 4:7-13:13 (Library of New Testament Studies, vol. 519; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014). 211 59 the author of Matthew did. That is a phenomenon not found in the other gospels, and the authors of those texts lived in the same culture and society as the author of Matthew. A major problem with Gardner’s assessment is his assigning “tittle” to vowels. Nowhere in Easton's quotation is the description of “tittle” ever assigned to vowel pointings. While it is true that Lehi and Nephi would not have known vowels in 600 BCE, this is an irrelevant point because Easton is not describing the vowels. Instead, he is describing the 22-letter Hebrew alphabet itself. Easton’s description is “point or stroke added to some letters of the Hebrew alphabet to distinguish them from others which they resemble,” and vowels are not included in that description. These would be letters like tav ( )תand chet ()ח. The “tittle” is the extra small mark on the left side of the tav that allows the reader to quickly spot the difference between the two. Although this is a minor detail, it is an important note. An even bigger problem would be to ask whether or not the Nephites would have had access to Hebrew script, since the text of the BM assumes it was not written in Hebrew script but rather in Egyptian engravings. According to Mosiah 1:4 the engravings were written in Egyptian writing, not Hebrew. The only author that says he is aware of Hebrew is Moroni in Mormon 9:33, but that is a problematic text if used in this regard. Not only is the description of Hebrew idealized in Mormon 9:33, but Moroni says that they have also altered the Hebrew. What about Hebrew did they alter? Did Nephi write in Hebrew, although the language they needed to preserve was written in Egyptian script? If he wrote in Hebrew, why would Moroni later state that they didn't write in Hebrew? The brass plates are important at the beginning of the narrative of the BM because Nephi needs to preserve his language, as he states, “it is wisdom in God that we should obtain 60 these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers.” 215 If they needed the brass plates, which were written in Egyptian, to preserve the language of their fathers, presumably Hebrew, then what text did they have that included any substantial amount of Hebrew script? It is not possible to argue that the brass plates did. The “language of their fathers” is also a difficult term because it is only used here in 1 Ne. 3:19 and nowhere else in the BM. 216 Gardner turns to the issue of the NT having influence on the BM. He points out how the text of the BM will often seem as if it is alluding to a text in the Hebrew Bible, but it instead cites NT versions of the Hebrew Bible text. He gives as an example 1 Ne. 10:7-8. Gardner shows how those two verses at first seem to be alluding to Isa. 40:3-4, but on closer examination, according to Gardner, they are closer to Mark 1:2 and 7. While it is true that the text of the BM is here influence by the NT, and not by Isa. 40:3-4, it is also not true that Mark 1:2 and 7 are the closest, and therefore influential, verses in the NT. While this section of the BM is similar to the Markan version, it is closer to the gospel of John, and blends some material from the synoptic gospels. 1 Ne. 10:7 echoes John 1:27, and then 1 Ne. 10:8 blends in material from Matt. 3:3 with John 1:23. That same verse then informally quotes John 1:26, and then echoes Matt. 3:11 before informally quoting John 1:27. The BM text continues to informally quote the gospel of John in 1 Ne. 10:9, when it states that John the Baptist would baptize in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, and then vss. 9 and 10 informally quote John 1:28 and then echo John 1:26. The structure of the passage, which is more inclusive here than the two verses Gardner notes in his study, is dependent on the flow of John 1:26-19. Ideas and language are then blended in from the gospel of Matthew with the 215 216 1 Ne. 3:19. The phrase “our language” is only used in Mosiah 8:12; 3 Ne. 5:18; and Morm. 9:34. 61 Johannine prologue. Gardner’s study was pointing in the right direction, but was not thorough enough in the analysis. While his identification of the influence of the KJV form of the NT on the text of the BM is commendable, his failure to make the correct connections with the NT invites careful and more detailed approaches to identifying influence in the BM. Hopefully Gardner’s study will invite more researchers to look at the question of the influence of the KJV on the BM, and that in the future the methods adopted will be more refined than the ones he employed. Grant Hardy Hardy’s research has been marked by careful attention to detail and nuanced analysis. More than previous scholars, Hardy recognizes the difficulties in determining and then describing the influence of the KJV on the BM, from literary, historical, and theological perspectives. The accuracy of his analysis in locating the texts in the KJV that have been influential within the BM is likely without rival. I will briefly describe Hardy’s research as found in a forthcoming essay and his book Understanding the Book of Mormon. 217 In his book Hardy points out how most people that read the BM notice that the block quotations of Isaiah are specifically from the KJV, with some variation. This leads to the question for many readers of why the KJV is being used, 218 rather than having a completely independent translation by JS. He points to how, although the quotations are obviously from the KJV, it is complicated by the fact that Emma Smith, JS’s wife, claimed late in life in an interview with her son, Joseph Smith, III, that during the dictation of the BM JS did not have a book or manuscript that could have been working from. Hardy notes that this would include 217 218 Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 66. 62 the Bible, 219 although the context of the questions was focused more specifically on the Spaulding manuscript theory of BM origins. For Hardy, it is clear that “the Book of Mormon Isaiah chapters, a s we have them today, are based on the King James Bible.” 220 He includes in his discussion the difficulty of the fact that sections of Isaiah are quoted that would have been written after Lehi and Nephi left Jerusalem (and therefore would not be on the Brass Plates). 221 He points out that when many past Mormon scholars have argued that biblical scholars concluded these chapters in Deutero-Isaiah (i.e. Isa. 40-55) were not written by Isaiah because those scholars do not believe in prophecy, their depiction of this scholarship is simply inaccurate and inadequate. 222 In a clear statement toward moving forward, Hardy argues that, “A more promising avenue for the faithful, it seems, is to acknowledge that we probably know less about what constitutes an “inspired translation” than we do about ancient Israel.” 223 Later on in the book he points out how quotations to any other book of the Bible that dates post600 BCE are anachronistic and “potentially challeng[e] the book’s historicity and its credibility.” 224 He goes on to make arguments that highlight both the potential for antiquity and for 19th century origins, based respectively on the BM authors’s possible use of prior BM texts, and the BM’s use of books from the NT. He specifically analyzes the use of Heb. 6 and 11 in Ether 12. 225 Although Hardy is not specifically looking at the influence of the KJV on the BM in his book, there are many pages that include discrepancies, some brief and others more in depth, about this influence. To date Hardy’s work in this book is some of the most sophisticated on Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 68. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 68. 221 Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 69. 222 Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 69. 223 Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 69. 224 Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 255. 225 Cf. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 256-261. 219 220 63 the question of the influence of the KJV over the BM text, and that is extended to a more recent essay that Hardy has written. Hardy’s forthcoming essay, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” 226 looks more specifically at how the various sections of the BM use the Bible. Hardy argues that the BM was obviously modeled on the Bible, and that “it owed much more to that book than to any other potential sources suggested through the years.” 227 He notes how the BM fits incredibly well with the trends of “pseudo-biblical” literature, noted in Eran Shalev’s recent study, 228 that was contemporary to the BM. The BM, “integrates the [Old and New] Testaments in an unprecedented fashion, with the result that it is hard to tell where the one ends and the other begins.” 229 Hardy recognizes how the BM is aware of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and responds to both of them as if they were a single unit, i.e. the KJV. At one point he even compares the BM to Melville’s Moby Dick, and says that the BM might perhaps be a folk art analogue to that work. 230 Later in the essay Hardy examines the influence of the KJV on the BM through the lens of intertextuality, and argues that the language of the KJV utilized in the BM goes beyond grammar and style to include specific recognizable phrases. These, he argues, can be classified as quotations, allusions, or echoes, and he goes on to examine several specific examples. While I would differ on the identification of many of the passages he analyzes, 231 Hardy’s essay is one of the most aware of current trends in intertextual studies and sophisticated of Grant Hardy, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” forthcoming. I am grateful to Dr. Hardy for graciously providing me with an early draft of this essay. 227 Hardy, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” 1. 228 Eran Shalev, American Zion: The Old Testament as a Political Text from the Revolution to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 229 Hardy, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” 4-5. 230 Hardy, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” 8. 231 I would classify all of the examples Hardy provides on page 23 of his essay as informal quotations, rather than as allusions as he labels them. 226 64 contemporary writings on the influence of the KJV on the BM. It would be well for future studies to take Hardy’s research on these questions seriously. John Hilton III Hilton has written two essays that look specifically at the question of intertextuality in the BM. In his first essay, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” 232 Hilton looks at cases of intratextuality 233 between two sections of the BM text in order to highlight “the possibility [of] intentional intertextual quotations and allusions within the Book of Mormon.” 234 Arguing convincingly for the importance of intertextual studies in BM scholarship, Hilton turns to the question of how exactly we can determine if similar passages indicate that the author intended for the connection to be seen by his audience or not. To answer this question he turns to the methodology proposed by Noel Reynolds (described above), and then describes the difficulty in determining similarity because the BM “is both an abridged and translated work, thus it can be difficult to determine if minor textual similarities or differences are the result of the abridgement by Mormon, of the translation by Joseph Smith, or are part of the text from an original writer.” 235 Hilton claims that it is also possible that certain phrases that are shared between the BM and the Book of Moses come from the Brass Plates, following Reynolds’s paper on the Brass Plates version of Genesis. To end the section Hilton brushes aside the question of influence from the NT on the BM because to him “such an argument misses the point of intertextuality within the Book of Mormon.” 236 John Hilton III, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” in BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2012), 39-60. 233 Hilton never uses the term “intratextuality” himself, opting instead for intertextuality. 234 Hilton, III, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” 41. 235 Hilton III, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” 43. 236 Hilton III, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” 44. 232 65 Unfortunately, Hilton’s paper suffers greatly from the assumptions he makes from the beginning. For one, there are other, more plausible explanations for why the BM and the Book of Moses occasionally agree against the KJV that were purposefully excluded by Reynolds in his research. Hilton follows Reynolds’ lead and therefore fails to notice several connections between the BM and the NT that significantly alter his data set and suggest conclusions other than the ones Hilton draws. For instance, when Hilton briefly mentions Reynolds’ assertion that the BM and the Book of Moses share similar historical sources, Hilton notes the use of the phrase, “carnal, sensual, and devilish appear together in the Book of Mormon in only two places and never appear together in the Old Testament.” 237 While this observation is accurate, Hilton fails to consider the NT for these words, and instead points to their appearance twice in the Pearl of Great Price. Rather than quickly concluding that the BM and Book of Moses share a similar textual source, Hilton should have checked for further uses of these terms. They are found in James 3:15: “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.” While two of the terms are exactly the same and “carnal” is substituted for “earthly,” this is the same as can be observed of other writers using James 3:15 during the first couple decades of the 19th century. 238 In other words, JS’s verbiage in both texts can be shown to echo the NT. Hilton’s misunderstanding of the relationship of these terms does not end here, though. Hilton III, “Textual Similarities in the Words of Abinadi and Alma’s Counsel to Corianton,” 44. Emphasis in the original. 238 See “His affections became carnal, sensual, and devilish. Eph. ii. 1-3. James iii. 15,” in Anonymous, Extracts from Ancient and Modern Authors, arranged so as to form a history or description of Man, in his natural, moral, and spiritual character: embracing nearly all the most important subjects of the Christian Religion. (London: E. Bridgewater, 1828), 207; and “His affections became carnal, sensual, and devilish. (Eph. ii. 1-3. James ii. 15.),” in Robert Hawker, The Poor Man’s Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament: arranged in alphabetical order, and containing, in addition to the usual literal explanation of words, short doctrinal and practical essays upon certain points of the truths of God. (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1828), 244; and “As the understanding is dark, and the will perverse, so the conscience is polluted, and full of dead works; and all the affections are in sad disorder; placed upon earthly objects, being carnal, sensual, and devilish,” in Thomas Taylor, Sixteen Lectures upon the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, recorded in the Second and Third Chapters of Revelations. (Bristol: R. Edwards, 1800), 65; and “But I conceive 237 66 In Table 1 on page 47 Hilton presents several “cases” where similar phraseology between Alma 39-42 is compared to Mosiah 15-17. In all of the instances where he says that “Times Exact Phrase Is Used Elsewhere in Scripture” is 0, there is actually at least one example, and sometimes many more, of where the phrase is found. Almost all of these are in the NT. 239 One would have to heavily emphasize the “exact” in his statement to exclude the other occurrences, but in order to do so there would need to be a demonstrable reason for making that decision. Due to these considerations, the fact that Hilton ignored possible connections with the NT, and his overall approach of searching for “exact” phrases, his analysis is severely undermined. It would take a reconsideration of his questions and comparisons, which would necessitate a new methodology, in order to salvage his paper. In his second paper, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” 240 Hilton’s work is hampered by some of the same pitfalls of his previous study, but looking closely at his “textual connections” in Table 1, 241 it is apparent that he has refined his approach in some ways. He shows forty-three instances in the BM of dependence on the Psalms, and how these psalms are used in Jacob and in Nephi’s Psalm. 242 Rather than ignoring similarities to the NT, Hilton points out when connections between the BM and the Psalms also connect to a NT that this fearful negotiation, now in progress, is ‘carnal, sensual, and devilish,’” in A Layman, “The Secret Out!” in The Reformer Vol. IX, No. 106 (Philadelphia, 1828), 146. 239 In case 1, “testimony against [them],” is found in Matt. 10:18; Mark 6:11; 13:9; Luke 9:5; “at the last day” is found in John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24. In case 5 “have no part” is found in Deut. 18:1. In case 8 “stand before God…judged…according to their works” is found in Rev. 20:12. In case 10, as already shown above, “carnal, sensual, and devilish” is found in James 2:15. In case 11 “for the redemption” is found in Ps. 49:8; Heb. 9:15. Mosiah 15:9 fits the context of Heb. 9:15 much better, and also utilizes phrases, similar to case 13, from other NT sources; see “from the foundation of the world.” In case 13, “from the foundation of the world” is found in Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Heb. 4:3; Rev. 13:8; 17:8. The one exception where Hilton has it right is case 9. 240 John Hilton, III, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” in David R. Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey, eds., Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and the Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2013), 291-311. 241 Hilton, III, “Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon,” 294-296. 242 Sidney Sperry coined this term to describe 2 Ne. 4:16-35 in his Our Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1948), 110-111. 67 text. Although there are still some mistakes, 243 the final product appears to much more meticulous and methodical. Julie Smith Smith presented at the Mormon Theology Seminar on the topic of reading Alma 32 through the lens of Isa. 55. 244 More specifically, she compares Isa. 54-56 with Alma 30-35, and begins by noting the fact that Julia Kristeva coined the term “intertextuality”. At the outset she asks the question “What relationship do these texts have?” 245 and offers four options, that there is no historical or intentional connection, that the BM writers/redactors intended the connection, that Isaiah prophesied of events in the BM, or that Isaiah and the BM writers/redactors drew on a common source. Smith argues for the second option, and jumps into her reading assuming that the reader is in agreement with her about the use of terms like quotation and allusion. Smith’s comparison is lucid and well written. It seems more practical than many of the other pieces already described, and she takes full advantage of the connections she finds between the Isaiah chapters and this section of Alma. Although not all of her connections are convincing as intended by the author, the connections she does make between the two texts are fascinating throughout. She is more careful to observe and note that places where the BM text of Isaiah varies from the KJV does not automatically signal that the BM has the original version. She points out how the addition to 2 Ne. 9:51, which corresponds to Isa. 55:2, breaks For example, Hilton seems to take a rigid word-for-word approach in cases 1-11, and then in case 12 he includes passages from Proverbs, Ezekiel, and 1 Thessalonians that in the other cases would likely not have been included. This might be due to the way WordCruncher runs its reports. In any case, it appears inconsistent when going through the first eleven cases to all of a sudden include these passages in case 12. 244 Julie M. Smith, “So Shall My Word Be: Reading Alma 32 Through Isaiah 55,” in Adam S. Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Provo: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2014), 7186. 245 Smith, “So Shall My Word Be,” 71. 243 68 the poetic structure of Isa. 55 and is therefore more likely an addition in the BM to the source text than it is that the BM is original. Smith’s paper overall is exemplary as a model for future studies that look specifically at how the KJV is used in the BM, even though she does not explicate a thorough methodology (or any methodology really at all). She explores the major issues she sets out to explain, and makes all of the relevant connections between the two texts. Her practical approach is commendable and hopefully invites more studies in a similar vein. 246 Nicholas Frederick Frederick completed a dissertation in 2013 at Claremont Graduate University entitled “Line Within Line: An Intertextual Analysis of Mormon Scripture and the Prologue of the Gospel of John.” 247 From the perspective of this author, Frederick’s dissertation is one of the most significant pieces of research on the BM specifically, and Mormon scripture generally, that has been produced to this point. Unfortunately, its significance has been partially offset by an essay that Frederick wrote for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Both of these studies will be described below. Frederick noted early in his dissertation that, unlike many scholars of Mormon history who have attempted to locate JS’s inspiration in the arcane or the profane, “one area where a provenance to Smith’s work can be absolutely demonstrated is the Bible.” 248 For Frederick this influence was not simply a question of translation technique, but rather “In composing the two texts [the BM and the Doctrine and Covenants], Smith borrowed thousands of phrases Smith also recently presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta on the topic, “A Double Portion: An Intertextual Reading of Hannah (1 Samuel 1-2) and Mark’s Greek Woman (Mark 7:24-30).” http://paulredux.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-intertextuality-in-new-testament.html (last accessed 1/18/2016). 247 Nicholas J. Frederick, “Line Within Line.” 248 Frederick, “Line Within Line,” 2. 246 69 from the King James Bible, phrases which he merged together with his own language to create modern, American scripture that for Mormons stands as equally (if not more so) sacred with the Bible.” 249 Throughout the dissertation Frederick takes for granted the idea that JS composed the text of the BM. Thus, “the text of John becomes relevant due to the unique nature of how Joseph Smith offers his own interpretation of John.” 250 Frederick is able to describe the relationship of the BM to the NT in this way because of the myriad of intertextual connections between the two texts, and the way that the BM varies from the NT based on the English, KJV text. Frederick’s three-hundred forty-one page dissertation deals only with the use of John 1:1-18, showing that much more could be written if the entire NT was explored in a similar way. Due to the nature of doctoral studies and his apparent academic abilities, Frederick’s thesis was the most focused and thorough of any research looking at the question of influence from the KJV on the BM. His knowledge of relevant literature in the field of biblical studies on inner-biblical exegesis, intertextuality, and literary influence helped to provide fertile ground from which Frederick was able to grow rich analyses and close readings of the BM text. His approach to past research on the question of the influence of the KJV on the BM and to what extent JS could have known the Bible is commendable for its breadth and its nuanced and careful explanation of the issues. It is also an important study because it returns to an approach, similar to Sperry and Vest, that is driven by data rather than ideology or traditional assumptions. Frederick recognizes the overwhelming influence the KJV has had on the BM, developed a methodology based on prior research and tweaked to fit the texts he was analyzing, and sought to explain his data set using neutral verbiage that can be positively 249 250 Frederick, “Line Within Line,” 2. Frederick, “Line Within Line,” 5. 70 engaged by any interested party. His dissertation will remain one of the most important advances forward in BM studies for the foreseeable future. Although Frederick’s dissertation significantly moved forward the discussion on the BM’s use of the KJV it will likely not be as available to the general public and many scholars as his essay in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. In the essay Frederick’s tone and overall confidence in locating influence from the KJV on the BM is greatly diminished. On the other hand, Frederick problematized both the discoveries and advancements he had made in his dissertation only two years after it was completed in his essay, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon: A Proposed Methodology.” 251 One would expect that Frederick would have started this essay where his dissertation left off, but instead he undermined and called into question the most basic facts he had utilized throughout his dissertation. Rather than following the generally accepted terms to discuss this particular form of intertextuality (i.e. quotation, allusion, and echo, those terms he used in his dissertation), he decided to propose terminology that seemingly skips over the question of authorship because, “If carefully defined, the terms quotation and [a]llusion can be useful. Otherwise, potentially fruitful discussions about the relationship between the two texts can quickly deteriorate into arguments over authorship, translation, and source.” 252 There are several problems with Frederick’s statement. First, it is highly problematic if a methodological approach is held hostage from the beginning because other scholars cannot stay focused on the topic at hand. Second, when discussing the relationship between the KJV and the BM the texts themselves should dictate 251 252 Nicholas J. Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.” Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” 9. 71 how we should understand the relationship. Contrary to Frederick’s statement, 253 the BM formally quotes the NT often enough to let us know that its author is aware of that text. Questions of authorship can stay simply at the level of “the author of the BM” and remain neutral enough to include all interested parties. 254 This should be particularly true when comparing the BM to the KJV. As Stanly Porter has pointed out, and Frederick quoted near the beginning of his essay, if this is taken “at least there is now debate over data, as opposed to hypotheses about reconstructed competencies” 255 or getting heated debates by calling in specific personalities as author (i.e. JS, Nephi, Mormon, etc.). Third, the fact that others cannot deal with the implications of using terms like quotation, allusion, and echo should not dictate whether or not those terms ought to be used. What should be decisive is if quotation, allusion, and echo of the NT in the BM can be demonstrated or not. As the lengthy dissertation of Frederick has shown, it is more than demonstrable. It is demonstrable when using only the first eighteen verses of the gospel of John, how much more so if studies similar to Frederick’s dissertation looked at the use of every verse of the NT? In the end Frederick opted to use the term “biblical interaction” rather than offer terms that dealt with what he had previously demonstrated was happening in the BM text. Instead of quotation, allusion, and echo Frederick used in their place “precise biblical interactions,” “probable biblical interactions,” and “possible biblical interactions.” Frederick reduced the concrete terms down to something abstract that approach a general intertext more than it does 253 “…the Book of Mormon rarely acknowledges its interactions with the Bible through formal quotations, with the exception of lengthy excerpts of Isaiah quoted by Nephi or Zenos’s olive-tree allegory quoted by Jacob,” in Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” 7. 254 If needed, “the author(s) of the BM” could be utilized if that will ease the possible tension for some readers. In this case the question of authorship would be left to the specific verse or pericope that is under examination. That could leave the question sufficiently open for any involved to discuss the issues. 255 Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Craig. A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 95; also cited in Frederick, “Evaluating the Interaction between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon,” 6, nt. 18. 72 anything else. In that context it is unclear whether precise, probable, or possible have any meaning at all because any number of connections or interactions can be made between any two texts. The work that Frederick was able to accomplish in his dissertation was offset by replacing his method with something of little concrete substance. Joseph Spencer Spencer wrote an increasingly influential book meant to be a primer on typology in the BM. 256 The book is organized around two major characters of the BM: Nephi and Abinadi. Each character is allotted two chapters, one each on exegesis, and then one on hermeneutics for Nephi and another on theology for Abinadi. In the course of his research Spencer occasionally made source-critical notes about what lays behind the text of the BM. 257 Like several of the other studies already noted, he failed to make connections with the NT where it would offer the best explanation for the evidence. In discussing Alma’s conversion story in Alma 36, Spencer states, “the sequence of events associated with Lehi’s first vision from 1 Nephi 1:5-7 is strikingly parallel to that of Alma’s encounter with the angel described in Alma 36:6-12. 258 While there may be similarities between the two accounts, it is not that difficult when reading Alma 36 to realize that a much more striking parallel of Alma’s conversion is the description of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, but this goes unmentioned in Spencer’s analysis. 259 In other places Spencer makes strained connections between texts, assigning vague relationships to the connections he perceives to be present between them. 260 Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salem: Salt Press, 2012). The book has recently been printed in a second edition at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Brigham Young University. 257 In the first chapter, under the section, “Exegetical Preliminaries: Sources,” Spencer asks, “What textual sources lie behind Alma 36?” Spencer, An Other Testament, 8. 258 Spencer, An Other Testament, 8. 259 Spencer, An Other Testament, 8-11. Cf. pages 19-20, 26. 260 Spencer, An Other Testament, 55-56. 256 73 When the connections are explicit, like Nephi’s use of Isaiah, Spencer’s connections are more reliable, but he still fails to explain fully some of the most important issues in approaching the way the BM uses the bible. Unlike most BM scholars before him, Spencer recognizes and accepts the scholarly consensus of the tripartite separation of Isaiah. 261 In this regard, though, Spencer avoids the question of whether or not the Nephite authors would have access to Deutero-Isaiah and instead focuses on recent scholarship that has argued for the theological unity of the entire book of Isaiah. By doing so Spencer addresses some of the recent scholarship and then is able to move on and discuss how the Nephites seem to have understood Isaiah to have only one author. While this works for his study for a time, he assumes, against the scholarly consensus, that the Nephites would have had access to all three of the sections of Isaiah. His approach becomes more problematic once Isaiah is mediated through the NT and into the BM. In his second chapter on hermeneutics and Nephi, Spencer attempts to compare DeuteroIsaiah and 1 Nephi. He focuses on 1 Ne. 10 and the prophecy of the Messiah being baptized in water. Spencer notes how important Bethabara is as a location, “both historically and doctrinally…for Nephi.” 262 He claims that the passage in 1 Ne. 10 draws on a passage from Deutero-Isaiah, but also notes that others might object to this connection because 1 Ne. 10 more closely connects with the NT. He is correct that others would object, because his claims about this pericope are simply untenable. First, he argues that the rendering of Isa. 40:3 is identical to the synoptic gospels and significantly differs from the gospel of John. While this is true for the line, “prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight,” it is inaccurate and misleading to then claim that the 261 262 Spencer, An Other Testament, 58. Spencer, An Other Testament, 71. 74 source behind Lehi’s words is ultimately Isa. 40:3. 263 To separate derived language and source the way that Spencer does is very problematic, and I am left wondering what the substantive difference between the two actually is. His explanation of the sources behind 1 Ne. 10 is far too simplistic, even though his purposes are to extract Deutero-Isaiah from the text. When you have KJV language that comes specifically from the KJV of the synoptic gospels (not Isa. 40:3), that is then blended with concepts and place names specific to the outlier gospel of John, 264 the ultimate source of the language and ideas is the four gospels compiled together in the NT. This is not simply a case of language being passed through the NT, from DeuteroIsaiah and into the BM. The gospels have affected the way the text of the BM was composed, and is therefore the ultimate source of these passages. While Spencer’s study has a very different focus than I have here in the present study, he still could have been more careful in his observations, and that attention to detail could have assisted him still in his conclusions. My arguments here do little to his overall thesis, but these points make it clear, along with many of the other studies already reviewed, that it is now currently and has been in the past a trend in BM studies to fail to make some of the most basic and essential observations on the BM’s relationship with the Bible. 2. Part II: The Documentary Hypothesis 265 Although not as widely accepted now as it was in the mid-20th century, the DH remains the prominent thesis for understanding the final form of the Pentateuch. It has been argued that its intellectual history goes back to at least the early rabbinic period with hints that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch, at least the eight verses in Deuteronomy describing his Spencer, An Other Testament, 72. Notice how in the bolded section of 1 Ne. 10:8, as provided by Spencer, includes the synoptic phrase, “mightier than I,” in the middle of the informal quotation from John 1:26-27. The BM text blends the synoptic and Johannine traditions together. 265 Henceforth DH. 263 264 75 death. 266 It was the general method of rabbinic and later medieval Jewish scholars to look elsewhere in the HB to answer the narrative problems, such as the issue of whether it was the Ishmaelites or Midianites that sold Joseph into Egypt (Gen. 37:18-36; the text has both parties selling him). 267 It would not be until the period of the Reformation that the problems of the narrative of the Pentateuch would be approached on their own terms. The idea that the focus should be on the text of scripture rather than on the inherited traditions would eventually lay the groundwork for identifying the literary problems of the Pentateuch. The classical DH springs out of the necessity to answer the literary problems that arise from a close reading of the narratives found in the Pentateuch itself. Exegetes had long noticed issues dealing with doublets or repetition of stories, contradictions within single narratives, various uses of divine names, discontinuities of plot, and so forth. Over time scholarly literature grew to the extent that a hypothesis was needed to answer all these issues. This scholarship came together to form a single hypothesis under the authorship of a German scholar named Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen organized the work of many of his contemporaries and those who came before him, and argued that there were four complete documents (hence the name DH) that were compiled by a redactor in the post-exilic era of Israelite history. These sources, in the order that they were written according to Wellhausen, 268 are: Yahwist (J), 269 Elohist (E), See the discussion of specific verses that certain Rabbis assigned to Joshua rather than Moses in Joel Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 13ff. 267 Probably the most interesting formulation in response to the issue of whether the Ishmaelites or the Midianites sold Joseph into Egypt was that of Nahmanides, a thirteenth century Jewish scholar in Spain. Nahmanides understood the narrative of Gen. 37 to be describing the Ishmaelites and Midianites working together to sell Joseph, with the Midianites hiring camels from the Ishmaelites. See the discussion of Nahmanides, among other Jewish and Christian thinkers, in Baden The Composition of the Pentateuch, 5-8. 268 Wellhausen thought that it was impossible to prove this part of the hypothesis. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 7. 269 For introductory remarks on these sources, see Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 610. 266 76 Deuteronomy (D), and Priestly (P) sources. Although the theory as Wellhausen argued it had several problems, it remained the dominant thesis in biblical scholarship well into the 20th century. It was not until the work of Rolf Rendtorff 270 that serious challenges to the hypothesis began to be leveled against the DH. Jean-Louis Ska equates the work of Rendtorff and his contemporaries with “the world rising up out of the ruins” of the broken post-WWII world. 271 In this context “The great masters of the past have been unmasked, and even the foundations of research have begun to crumble.” 272 This approach led to questioning not only the sources that had previously been identified by critical scholarship, but the historical-critical process in general. It is now the norm in European scholarship to reject the classical DH, at least the J and E sources. While not everyone agrees with the DH there are some commonalities between the various approaches, 273 and all current theories follow some version of the DH. 274 Contemporary European approaches argue that the sources P and D not only exist, but are easily discernible, while the rest of the texts either fall under the categories of non-P or non-D. 2.1 Current Trends in Pentateuchal Scholarship The field of Pentateuchal scholarship has been in a place of transition for several decades now, where American/Israeli approaches to the Pentateuch were not in close dialogue with See especially his The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (transl. John J. Scullion; JSOTSup, 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1977). 271 Jean Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (transl. Sr. Pascale Dominique; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 127. 272 Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, 128. 273 For the best single volume representation of the various approaches, see Thomas B. Dozeman, et al, eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78; Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 274 For a similar comment see Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (Second Edition; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 55. Konrad Schmid, a leading scholar in Pentateuchal criticism, commented at the Society of Biblical Literature’s 2013 annual meeting in Baltimore, MD that even Europeans who discard the classical DH still consider themselves “documentarians” (Witnessed by the author at the session on the Pentateuch). 270 77 European trends. This has caused a major rift between the scholars from the respective areas of the world, but as of the last five or so years there appears to be a movement that aims to bridge the gap and bring researchers back to more open dialogue with one another. The fruits have already begun to show in several publications, even though there are still significant differences in approach. In American and Israeli scholarship there has arisen a “neo-Documentary Hypothesis,” which has several younger scholars at its head defending a new and refined version of the classical DH. Joel Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, in particular, represent this movement. Baden’s doctoral dissertation examined several assumptions in the classical DH that for decades went unquestioned, particularly the assumption that both the J and E documents were edited together at an early stage in the history of the composition of the Pentateuch. 275 He showed that if J and E were actual documents at one point in history, which he argues strongly that they were, then they were not combined until all four sources of the DH were combined together. He also argued against the developments in the first half of the 19th century that saw several redactors bringing the Pentateuch together. He concluded that not only were J and E always separate until the time they were edited together with D and P, there was also only one major redactor. 276 Jeffrey Stackert’s work focuses on the use of the Covenant Collection (CC) and Deuteronomy by the Holiness Legislation. 277 The Holiness School, commonly denoted as ‘H’, wrote Lev. 17-26, but the work of Israel Knohl in the early 1990s has created a consensus that Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (Foschungen zum Alten Testament, 68; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 276 Baden has also written an important study that utilizes German and American/Israeli models for understanding the Pentateuch. This book is essential reading for all those interested in this field. See Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012). 277 Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 52; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 275 78 the influence of H was much wider than that block of chapters in Leviticus. 278 Dependent himself, as most scholars now are, on Knohl’s research on the H, Stackert argues convincingly that these later authors were not only aware of but transformed many of the laws found in the CC for their own purposes. His research generally supports the findings of other contemporary scholars who follow a version of the DH. Representing another approach, Konrad Schmid has been an important scholar in the European approach to understanding the composition of the Pentateuch. He has argued that the methodology of many other scholars to treat the DH and the Supplementary or Fragmentary hypotheses as exclusive is a shortcoming in contemporary research. 279 Elsewhere, Schmid has argued that P was the first to bring together the themes the primeval story, the patriarchal story, and the exodus story. 280 This means that the non-P materials in the Pentateuch were not narratives that had been coherently edited or written together prior to the composition of P (in the early Persian period), and therefore were not source documents. This excludes both J and E as source documents, but retains P and D as documents. The description above, although very brief and simplistic, provides a window into the current state of Pentateuchal criticism. In American/Israeli models, the DH has found new life and has been refined and tightened to ensure that past criticisms of the theory have been explained, and hopefully future failings of the theory will be minimal. In European schools J and E have both fallen out of favor, and are generally not accepted by European researchers as viable source documents. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). Konrad Schmid, “Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status,” in Thomas B. Dozeman, et al, The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 17. 280 Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010). 278 279 79 I follow the contention of Baden and others that it order to grapple with the text of the Pentateuch the scholar must first begin with the text of the Pentateuch that we have, and work back from there. Baden has shown in his research that there are several places throughout the Pentateuch that create narrative continuity within each of the four documents, and has made a sustained and coherent argument for the viability of a refined view of the J source. It is primarily his work that the current study relies most heavily upon. 80 3. Locating Textual Dependence in the BM on the J Source In this section I provide the full list of comparisons between the Yahwist and the BM. This will show the extent of the influence of the Yahwistic source on the BM, but will also highlight the fact that the BM text has also been influenced by the Priestly source, as well as numerous NT verses. My original goal for this section was to only highlight the influence of J, but the more I collected the data it became apparent that J texts had been read with other sections of the KJV by the author of the BM. The texts work as what many who study intertextuality in the HB and NT have called a “chorus” or “symphony” of voices singing together. It is not a single Pentateuchal or Biblical source that has influenced the composition of the BM, but rather a meshing together of almost all of the books of the KJV. 281 3.1 The Yahwist in the BM 282 BM Title Page, par. 2, lines 1-2 = Gen. 11:4a, 9a (A) BM: Also, which is a record of the People of Jared, which were scattered at the time the LORD confounded the language of the people when they were building a tower to get to Heaven… KJV: 4a And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven… 9a Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth… 1 Ne. Intro = Ex. 3:18b|8:27 (P) BM: He taketh three days’ journey into the wilderness with his family. 281 Contra John Sorenson (“The ‘Brass Plates’ and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 10, No. 4 [Autumn, 1977], 31-39), who has argued that the Pentateuchal text that the BM authors have access to on the Brass Plates is likely the Elohistic (E) source. See also my comments on Noel Reynolds’ essay, “The Brass Plates Version of Genesis,” in Section 1.4. 282 The text-critical notes in this section compare the base text (i.e. the 1830 edition of the BM) with the extant original (O) and printer’s manuscripts (P), as well as Skousen’s The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) (S). If a verse has an asterisk (*) this signifies that the section of O is no longer extant. 81 KJV: 18b and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God… KJV: 27 We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. 1 Ne. 2:3 = Num. 27:22 (E) BM: And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, where 283 he did as the Lord commanded him. KJV: And Moses did as the LORD commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation. 1 Ne. 2:6-7 = Ex. 3:18b; 8:27|Gen. 26:17 (E) BM: 6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley beside 284 a river of water. 7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and he made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God. KJV: 18b and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God… 27 We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. BM: 6b he pitched his tent in a valley beside a river of water. KJV: 17 And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. 1 Ne. 2:22 = Gen. 27:29 (E) BM: And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. KJV: Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee. 1 Ne. 3:2 = Gen. 37:9a (I. Q.) BM: And it came to pass that he spake unto me, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream, in the which the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem. KJV: and he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more… 1 Ne. 3:15 = Gen. 43:5 (E) 283 284 P, S: wherefore; O: where(fore) P: by the side of 82 BM: But behold I said unto them, that as the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness, until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us. KJV: But if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down: for the man said unto us, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you. 1 Ne. 4:2-3 = Ex. 14:16, 22-23, 30 (A) BM: 2 therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses: For he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea, and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through out of captivity on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh 285 did follow and were drowned 286 in the waters of the Red Sea. 3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you, wherefore can ye doubt. Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians. KJV: 16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea… 22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. 23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen… 30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. 1 Ne. 5:11-12 = Gen. 1:1-5:5 (A) BM: 11 And he beheld that they did contain the five Books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, which 287 was our first parents; 12 and also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah; 1 Ne. 7:14a = Gen. 6:3 (E) BM: For, behold, the spirit 288 of the Lord ceaseth 289 soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison… KJV: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 1 Ne. 8:10-13, 15-17, 23, 27-28, 30 = Gen. 2:25; 3:2, 3, 6 (E) BM: 10 And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable, to make one happy.11 And it came to pass that I did go forth, and partake 290 of the fruit thereof; and I 291 beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever had 292 before tasted. Yea, and I O: Pharro; P: pharia O: drownded 287 P: ^whowhich ^warewas 288 P: the^spirit the Lord 289 O: cea{th|s}es 290 O, S: partook; P: part{ook\\ake} 291 O, S: and beheld 292 P: I ever had before 285 286 83 beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. 12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof, it filled my soul with exceeding great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirous 293 above all other fruit 13 And as I cast my eyes round 294 about, that perhaps I might discover my family also, 295 I beheld a river of water; and it ran along, and it was near the tree of which I was partaking the fruit…15 And it came to pass that I beckoned unto them; and I also did say unto them, with a loud voice, that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit. 16 And it came to pass that they did come unto me, and partake of the fruit also. 17 And it came to pass that I was desirous that Laman and Lemuel should come and partake of the fruit also; wherefore, I cast mine eyes towards 296 the head of the river, that perhaps I might see them…23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceeding great mist of darkness, insomuch that they which 297 had commenced in the path, did lose their way, that they wandered off, and were lost…27 and it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceeding fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those which 298 had come at, 299 and were partaking of the fruit. 28 And after that 300 they had tasted of the fruit, they were ashamed, because of those that were 301 scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths, and were lost…30…Behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; 302 and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down, and partook of the fruit of the tree. KJV: 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed… 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die… 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 1 Ne. 8:27 = Gen. 19:4 (E) BM: and it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceeding fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those which303 had come at, 304 and were partaking of the fruit. P: desire^ableous S: around 295 O, S: also, and I; P: also & I beheld 296 O, S: toward 297 P: ^whowhich 298 ^whowhich 299 O, S: up 300 P: that 301 O, P, S: were a scoffing 302 S: forwards 303 ^whowhich 304 O, S: up 293 294 84 KJV: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 1 Ne. 11:21 = Gen. 3:3 (E) BM: And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal 305 Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? KJV: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 1 Ne. 11:25 = Gen. 2:9; 3:22, 24 (E) BM: And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God. KJV: 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil…3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:…24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. 1 Ne. 12:18 = Deut. 33:21 (E) BM: and the large and spacious building which thy father saw, is vain imaginations, and the pride of the children of men. And a great and 306 terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word 307 of the justice of the Eternal God, and Jesus 308 Christ, which is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever. KJV: And he provided the first part for himself, because there, in a portion of the lawgiver, was he seated; and he came with the heads of the people, he executed the justice of the LORD, and his judgments with Israel. 1 Ne. 15:21 = Gen. 31:10 (E) BM: And it came to pass that they did speak unto me again, saying: What meaneth the 309 thing 310 which 311 our father saw in a dream? What meaneth the tree which he saw? P: eternal God Father P, S: and a terrible 307 S, O: sword 308 P: & ^MosiahJesus Christ ^whowhich is 309 P: meaneth th{e\\i}s thing 310 S: things 311 P: which of our 305 306 85 KJV: And it came to pass at the time that the cattle conceived, that I lifted up mine eyes, and saw in a dream, and, behold, the rams which leaped upon the cattle were ringstraked, speckled, and grisled. 1 Ne. 15:22, 28, 36 = Gen. 2:9; 3:22, 24 (E) BM: 22 And I said unto them, it was a representation of the tree of life… 28 and I said unto them, that it was an awful gulf, which separateth the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the Saints of God… 36 wherefore, the wicked are rejected 312 from the righteous, and also from that tree of life, whose fruit is most precious and most desirable above 313 all other fruits; yea, and it is the greatest of all the gifts of God… KJV: 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil…3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:…24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. 1 Ne. 17:25 = Ex. 2:23; 5:13 (A) BM: Now ye know that the children of Israel were in bondage; and ye know that they were laden with tasks, which were grievous to be borne; wherefore, ye know that it must needs be a good thing for them, that they should be brought out of bondage. KJV: 2:23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage…5:13 And the taskmaster hasted them, saying, Fulfil your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw. 1 Ne. 17:26-27 = Ex. 14:28, 31 (A) BM: 26 Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word, the waters of the Red Sea were 314 divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground. 27 But ye know that the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, which 315 were the armies of Pharaoh; KJV: 28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horseman, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them…31 And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. 1 Ne. 17:29 = Ex. 17:6; Num. 20:11 (I. Q.) S, O: separated S, O: of 314 P, S: was 315 P: wh{i\\o}ch 312 313 86 BM: yea, and ye also know that Moses, by his word, according to the power of God which was in him, 316 smote the rock, and there came forth water, that the children of Israel might quench their thirst; KJV: 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. 20:11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 1 Ne. 17:30 = Ex. 13:21 (I. Q.) BM: and notwithstanding they being led, the Lord their God, their Redeemer, 317 going before them, leading them by day, and giving light unto them by night, and doing all things for them which was 318 expedient for man to receive, they hardened their hearts, and blinded their minds, and reviled against Moses and against the true and living God. KJV: And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: 2 Ne. 1:21 = Gen. 42:38; 44:29, 31 (E) BM: And now that my soul might have joy in you, and that my heart might leave this world with gladness because of you; that I might not be brought down with grief and sorrow to the grave, arise from the dust, my sons, and be men, and be determined in one mind, and in one heart united in all things, that ye may not come down into captivity; KJV: 42:38 And he said, My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone: if mischief befall him by the way in the which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave… 44:29 And if ye take this also from me, and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave…31 It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die: and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave. 2 Ne. 2:13 = Allusion to creation (A)* BM: And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. 319 If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.–And if there be no righteousness, there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness, there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God. And if there is no God, we are not, neither the earth: for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore all things must have vanished away. 2 Ne. 2:14 = Allusion to Creation (A) O: him