Overview
Despite only having 13
essays/reviews (counting the Editor’s Introduction), this issue stretches
across more than 500 pages (again, counting the Ed. Intro.). Naturally, that
means this volume featured some very long articles, including one that was more
than 130 pages!
Among the contents of this issue one
will find topics discussing the Spaulding theory, the Book of Mormon
translation manuscripts and eyewitnesses, sectarian anti-Mormon tactics, the
Arabian setting for the early part of the Book of Mormon, in-depth analysis of
LDS and Christian creation theology, Joseph Smith, psychohistory, positivistic
ideology, and Book of Mormon literary forms, comparisons with Mormons and Jews,
secular anti-Mormonism, the JST manuscripts, and the Joseph Smith Papyri. Thus,
as usual, this issue provides an array of topics, one of which is bound to
interest you.
Recommended Reading:
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction – Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account, pg. xi-xlix:
Peterson discusses evidence for the Book of Mormon, focusing primarily on the
evidence found in the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, as well the
eyewitness accounts of the translation process, and the testimonies of the
three and eight witnesses. It is Peterson’s view (and I tend to agree), that
these issues remain problematic for critics of the Book of Mormon, as no
satisfactory explanation has yet to be provided.
Matthew Roper, “The Mythical ‘Manuscript Found’,” a review of Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, and Arthur Vanick, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma (St. Louis, MO: Concoria, 2005), pg. 7-140:
Spanning across more than 130 pages, Roper offers an in depth investigation of the case
for the Spaulding theory made by Cowdrey et al. To their credit, Cowdrey and
company probably make the best possible
case for the Spaulding theory. Unfortunately, their best case is only enough to
put the theory on life support, and Roper effectively pulls the plug and places
the corpus in its coffin for the viewing (Roper has since put the nails in the
coffin and effectively buried the issue with his 2009 essay, which adds important
supplementary analysis to this review). As I said when reviewing vol. 21/2,
Roper has produced the most authoritative work on the Spaulding theory, and in
my view his arguments are fatal.
Brant A. Gardner, “Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion,” a review of Joel P. Kramer and Scott R. Johnson, The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon (Brigham City, UT: Living Hope Ministries, 2005), pg. 145-195:
Gardner “unmasks” the “illusions” of quality scholarship and objective
investigation that the producers of this film try to create. A great deal of
the essay is spent emphasizing that Old World archaeology and research is
completely different to New World archaeology, due to the fact that much more
is known about the history of the Old World, and far more ancient texts have
been found (along with more archaeological research in general) in the Old
World than in the New. The most valuable portion of this review, in my opinion,
is the portion where he discusses how one would go about detecting a Christian
presence in Mesoamerica – noting that since Christians and Jews have typically
adopted the iconography of their surrounding culture, their presence would
virtually indistinguishable in the absence of historical texts (which is
exactly the circumstance we find in Mesoamerica).
Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “The Wrong Place for Lehi’s Trail and the Valley of Lemuel,” review of George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in theWilderness (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort, 2003), pg. 197-215: Potter and
Willington’s exploration of Lehi’s trail has become a fairly popular one, and
their candidate for the “Valley of Lemuel” has been maintained by other
scholars as the best present candidate. Nonetheless, Chadwick as some serious
misgivings about it, and some of his criticisms are valid (and some may even be
insurmountable). I have not yet seen Potter, or anyone else who has promoted
their “Valley of Lemuel” candidate formulate a response to the most serious
objections which Chadwick raises. As such, Chadwick’s review remains an
important article in the realm of “Book of Mormon Old World Geography,” and it
ought to be read by any serious students of the subject. Despite his
misgivings, however, Chadwick is clear that he strongly recommends the book,
considers some chapters of it to be required reading for those interested in
this topic (Lehi in Arabia) and that he enjoyed reading it.
Boyd Jay Peterson, “Response to Leaving the Saints,” a review of Martha Beck, Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith (New York, NY: Crown, 2005), pg. 217-251:
Peterson is Hugh Nibley’s son-in-law (and thus Beck’s brother-in-law) and the
author of the authorized biography of Nibley. Peterson makes it very clear that
he is a player in the events that have unfolded in the wake of Beck’s book, and
not a disinterested scholar. He also clarifies that this is a “response,” not a
“review” proper. Given his closeness of the situation, this reply to Beck’s
book is much more personal than the other reviews previously published in the Review and elsewhere. Peterson is also
clear that while he has some bias, he also had a familiarity with the events
and circumstances related in Beck’s book, and thus has relevant information
that others lack. Ultimately, Peterson’s “response” is (in my view) the most
important review of Beck’s book precisely because of its personal nature. While
it’s true that some information might be emotionally biased, Peterson left us
notes and documentation so that the accuracy of his allegations can be traced,
if necessary. This is more than can be said of Martha Beck.
Blake Ostler, “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought,” a review of Paul Copan and William Lane Craig,“Craftsman or Creator? An Exmination of the Mormon Doctrine of the Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo,” in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002): 95-152; Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), pg. 253-320: Hollis Johnson engaged the scientific arguments advanced by
Copan and Craig in a previous issue of the Review.
What we have here is Ostler’s excellent critique of Copan and Craig’s
theological/philosophical arguments. Ostler’s illustrates that creation ex nihilo is simply
indefensible as an originally “biblical doctrine” and even many evangelical
scholars – who believe in creation out of nothing – admit that it was an
innovation of doctrine in the late second century AD. In refusing to concede
this point Copan and Craig (as Ostler shows), strain the biblical and early
Christian texts, insert eisegesis where exegesis should be, and impose their
ideological assumptions on the original authors of the text.
Alan Goff, “Dan Vogel’s Family Romance and the Book of Mormon as Smith Family Allegory,” review of Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004), pg. 321-400: While other
reviews of Vogel’s book have discusses and critiqued its historical merits, Goff discusses Vogel’s ideological assumptions
and how they impose themselves into his telling of Joseph Smith’s story, his
poor use of psychohistory, and his superficial reading of the Book of Mormon in
an effort to make it into some sort of “allegory” for Joseph Smith’s life. Goff
points out how all of these efforts result in Vogel forcing, and even inventing,
the evidence for his theory.
Raphael Jospe, “Jews and Mormons: Similarities and Differences, pg. 401-421: With the constant back and forth
between LDS and Evangelicals getting old, and the discussions with secular
critics of the LDS faith only proving to be mildly better, a discussion of the
similarities and differences between Jews and Mormons is refreshing. Jospe
talks about interfaith dialogue as means to enhance
differences, and talks about the need to have such friendly relations. He
discusses how on many points Mormons and Jews are both similar and different.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Reflectionson Secular Anti-Mormonism,” pg. 423-450: Peterson offers some of his
rudimentary musings of what he feels is the more serious problem for LDS
apologists at this point: secular anti-Mormonism (as opposed to anti-Mormons of
the evangelical variety). Although mostly preliminary, and thus in a sense
superficial, I still found some of Peterson’s remarks rather poignant. After
trying to identify different types of secular anti-Mormons and contextualizing
them with the broader backdrop of modern secularism, Peterson places most of
their criticisms into two broad categories and argues that their position may
be somewhat incoherent, and thus self-defeating.
Kerry Muhlestein, “The Book of Breathings in Its Place,” a review of Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo,UT: FARMS, 2002), pg. 471-486: As Muhlestein discusses all the ways this
definitive translation and commentary is going to benefit the scholarly
community (especially the Egyptological community), one can’t help but think
this is a little bit of FARMS self-promotion (not that I think there is
anything wrong with that). But, I recommended it for two reasons: (a) it illustrates
that FARMS is not nothing but some
pseudo-scholarly institution dedicated to covering up problems for the LDS
faith (Rhodes’s translation of the JSP is only one of many things published by
FARMS which is not apologetic and is
actually quite useful for the broader scholarly community), and (b) Muhlestein
provides a side-by-side comparison of Rhodes translation and transliteration
with that of Robert Ritner’s, with the differences noted and discussed. Such a comparison
may not be all that useful for Mormon Studies proper, but is likely invaluable
for Egyptian Studies.
Final Thoughts
To be perfectly honest with you, I
LOVED this issue. Both D. Peterson’s Introduction and his additional article on
secular anti-Mormonism are must reads, as are the contributions from Roper,
Chadwick, B. Peterson, Ostler, Goff, and Muhlestein (at least his appendix with
his translation comparisons). Yes, that is a lot of “must reads” (as always,
they are “must reads” for those interested in the topics they touch on), but
this issue was really THAT good. The other two articles recommended here (the
one by Gardner and Jospe) are likewise important contributions. This is in the
running for best issue ever
(according to me, of course) along with 18/1 and 14/1-2.
Rating: 5/5
I guess I better make a point of reading this issue. I think I've only read three or four of these articles thus far.
ReplyDelete