Overview
I scored this issue of the Review while scouring the bookshelves at
the DI. So, yes, it is used and little more beat-up, but I was glad to acquire
this “priceless gem” for a meager 3 bucks (unfortunately, I was unable to obtain a picture of this volume's cover)
It was this year (2003) it officially
became the FARMS Review (rather than
the FARMS Review of Books), and it inaugurates
their publishing of non-review essays, or “free standing essays” as they call
them, the first of which is the essay by John Welch featured below. This is
also when they added “Book Notes” and changed to the present (as of 2010 – Lou
Midgley has reported that 2011 will different) cover design (I should note that
2011 marks several additional changes for the Review, including its name, but these will be further discussed
after I get and read my copy of the forthcoming issue).
This issue features a number of
classics, including Midgley’s introduction and Welch’s article on chiasmus. It
also features additional responses to the New
Mormon Challenge, building upon what they started in volume 14.
Recommended Reading:
Louis Midgley, “Editor’s Introduction: On Caliban Mischief,” pg. xi –xxxvii: In the first Ed. Intro.
not written by Dan Peterson, Midgley offers some of his musing on various
developments within evangelical anti-Mormonism.
Randall P. Spackman, “Interpreting Book of Mormon Geography,” a review of John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Map (Provo, UT: FARMS), pg. 19-46: Add this to the list of required reading for Book of Mormon
geography enthusiasts. I began reading this review half expecting one of the
sometimes patronizing, FARMS-self-promotion type reviews occasionally published
in the Review about something or
other that FARMS has published. This, however, was not the case. Spackman
examines the methodology and assumptions involved in this book, along with
Sorenson’s Geography of Book of Mormon
Events and John Clark’s “A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies,”
comparing and contrasting the approaches of both Sorenson and Clark, and their
strengths and weaknesses, and identifying specific area’s wherein more study is
most needed. Spackman ultimately calls for a collaborative effort between
qualified individuals to come up with an internal map that can more-or-less be
agreed upon, thus allowing further research into the real world setting to
proceed from some common ground.
John W. Welch, “How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Translated?” pg. 47-80:
Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon continues to be a hot topic as advocates tend to
use it as a key evidence, while critics brush it off as insignificant. Welch,
who was the first to discover the form in the Book of Mormon back in 1967,
remains the primary authority on the subject. Here, Welch discusses the
possibility of Joseph Smith learning of the form from contemporary sources. He
provides a useful history of the “discovery” of chiasmus in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries and concludes that it is highly unlikely that
Joseph knew anything of the form prior to translating the Book of Mormon.
Kevin L. Barney, “A More Responsible Critique,” a review of Thomas J. Finley, “Does the Book of Mormon Reflect an Ancient Near Eastern Background?,” and David J. Shepherd, “Rendering Fiction: Translation, Pseudotranslation, and the Book of Mormon,” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002): 337-395, pg. 97-146:
Continuing what began in volume 14/1-2, this is the first in a series of
responses to the The New Mormon Challenge
in this volume. Barney starts off making some comments regarding Blomberg’s “Is
Mormonism Christian?” essay (more fully responded to in volume 14) and then
delves into the two essays under review, starting with Finley’s. Barney
discusses details regarding writing on metals, Hebraisms, Book of Mormon names,
and 1 Nephi geography. Moving on to Shephard’s, Barney discusses the complexity
of the Book of Mormon translation.
John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” a review of Thomas J. Finley, “Does the Book of Mormon Reflect an Ancient Near Eastern Background?,” and David J. Shepherd, “Rendering Fiction: Translation, Pseudotranslation, and the Book of Mormon,” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002): 337-395, pg. 147-201:
Tvetdnes and Roper offer another critique of Finley and Shepherd. They focus on
many of the same issues, but provide a different approach. They also provide a
greater amount of evidence and commentary on issues such as writing on metal
plates, Book of Mormon names, and 1 Nephi geography, likely because some of Finley’s remarks on
those subjects dealt with the research that at least one of these two had done,
sometimes work they had published together.
Blake T. Ostler, “Evil: A Real Problem for Evangelicals,” a review of Carl Mosser, “Can the Real Problem of Evil Be Solved?” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002): 212-218, pg. 201-213: Ostler responds to arguments made by Mosser
that the problem of evil had already been solved and that the “real” problem of
evil is for Latter-day Saints who believe in a God who is powerless to prevent
evil.
Barry R. Bickmore, “Of Simplicity, Oversimplification, and Monotheism,” a review of Paul Owen, “Monotheism, Mormonism, and the New testament Witness,” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002): 271-314, pg. 215-258: Bickmore feels
that Owen has oversimplified things, and as a result completely misses the
mark. Also notes points of evidence ignored by Owen.
Larry E. Morris, “‘The Private Character of the Man Who Bore That Testimony’: Oliver Cowdery and His Critics,” a review of LaMar Peterson, The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry (Salt Lake City, UT: Freethinker, 1998); Robert D. Anderson, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1999); Dan Vogal, “The Validity of the Witnesses’ Testimony,” in Dan Vogal and Brent Lee Metcalf, American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2002), pg. 311-351: Morris tackles the various
attempts to discredit Oliver Cowdery as one of the three witnesses in the above
works. Inevitably, some of his arguments can be applied to the three witnesses
in general, and some of the arguments he responds to are directed at all three
witnesses. Most of the review is naturally directed at Vogal, since his essay
deals with Oliver and the witnesses most directly. Morris provides a solid
critique of the critical methods used by those attempting to dismiss Cowdery
and a firm defense of the “Second Elder.”
Kevin L. Barney, “Isaiah Interwoven,” a review of Donald W. Perry, Harmonizing Isaiah: Combining Ancient Sources (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001), pg. 353-402:
In this “review” of Perry’s book, Barney goes above and beyond simply reviewing
Perry’s book. Barney compares and contrasts the translation of Parry with that
of Avraham Gileadi, noting the strengths and weaknesses of both; he discusses
chiasmus and responds to some of Dan Vogel’s comments on that issue; he
discusses the “translation” process of the Book of Mormon and JST, and he talks
about the Isaiah variants in those works and responses to some of David Wright’s
work on the Book of Mormon Isaiah variants. So he covers quite a bit of ground.
All of that makes this an interesting and worthwhile essay to read, with a lot
of useful information.
Final Thoughts
Overall, this is a solid issue, and
one that I am glad I can have on my bookshelf. The essays by Midgley and Welch
are, as already stated, “classics” and therefore must-reads in their respective
subjects. Once again, the responses to the New
Mormon Challenge (Barney, Tvedtnes and Roper, Bickmore, and Ostler) are
must-read material for those interested in the dialogue between Mormons and Evangelicals,
and that series of articles is what makes this an important contribution to
Mormon Studies. I would also add Morris’s review as must-read for those
interested in the Oliver Cowdery in particular, and the three witnesses (or all the Book of Mormon witnesses) in
general, and Spakeman’s is right up there with all of Clark’s reviews on Book
of Mormon geography as must-read material on that subject. That leaves us with
Kevin Barney’s second contribution as the only “recommended reading” not deemed
“must-read” in some capacity. One should not get the mistaken view, then, that
this essay is not also very good and worthwhile for all interested in the
subject matter.
Rating: 4/5
Comments
Post a Comment