David Bokovoy Issues a Devastating Critique of the Mopologists' "Scholarship"

[Doctor Scratch]

Roughly two weeks ago, a pair of articles appeared on the Mormon Interpreter blog. One of these, authored by the well-coifed and loud-mouthed Mopologist Blake Ostler, got the lion's share of the attention. It turns out, though, that the companion piece was every bit as deserving of critical examination. The article in question is called "The Brass Plates: Can Modern Scholarship Help Identify Their Contents?" and it was authored by an Australian attorney named A. Keith Thompson. The problems with Thompson's article are apparent (to anyone familiar with the Documentary Hypthesis) starting with the abstract:

Abstract: The Book of Mormon contains little information about what the Brass Plates contain. Nephi said it was a larger record than the Hebrew Bible brought to America by the Gentiles. But it could not have contained the records of Old Testament prophets who wrote after Lehi’s party left Jerusalem or the New Testament. We know it contained some writings from Zenos, Zenock, Neum, and Ezias, but what else could it have contained? Though the “Documentary Hypothesis” idea that the Christian Bible is the product of redactors is distasteful to many Christians, this article suggests this scholarship should not trouble Latter-day Saints, who celebrate Mormon’s scriptural abridgement of ancient American scripture.

Huh. "it could not have contained the records of Old Testament prophets who wrote after Lehi's party left"? Well, suffice it to say that the article did not go over well. Even the normally heavily edited comments at "Interpreter" are negative:

You believe that the Documentary Hypothesis applies to the entire Old Testament? Did you bother to do any reading about the Documentary Hypothesis at all before writing this paper? Heck, even a sixth grader writing a paper would at least read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on a topic.

Here it is, since you apparently couldn’t be bothered to look it up on your own: The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of the models historically used by biblical scholars to explain the origins and composition of the Torah (or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

Your paper is not good, and the Interpreter needs to work on its peer review process.

Well, yes. It would seem that the addition of Jeff Lindsay has done little to correct the problems that ran rampant under Allen Wyatt.

There are a lot of missteps throughout the essay. The author misrepresents biblical scholarship left and right, let alone selling short most of the scholarship he claims to be responding to when he actually doesn’t. Thompson (and Reynolds and Lindsay) will have to do a little better than this if they’re going to actually convince anyone.

Wow...this is brutal stuff! Will this article wind up gaining notoriety on the level of the Dales'? Time will tell, but in the meantime, the Mopologists find themselves having to confront someone from the Big Leagues.

Enter David Bokovoy, looking simultaneously Santa Clausian and like he could pop your head as if it was a grape. Ever the polite gentleman, Bokovoy opens his posting graciously, but he quickly cuts to the chase:

In his essay, Thompson attempts to expose his readers to the basics of documentary analysis in the Pentateuch with these words:

“The [Documentary] hypothesis claims that the Old Testament was probably compiled after the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity and that the compilation drew its text from four different Hebrew narrative traditions, each of which had its own agenda (p. 85).”

This, however, is an incorrect assertion. And unfortunately, it’s not a trivial mistake. The DH makes no such claims. The DH only pertains to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament). The Old Testament contains 24 books that were written over a thousand-year period from approximately 1200 to 200 BCE. The DH only pertains to the first five books or the Pentateuch, not the entire Hebrew Bible. Yet unfortunately, this is not simply an editorial oversight. Thompson makes this same critical error throughout the essay:

Simply stated, Bokovoy's post is an epic takedown of the Mopologists--all happening on the eve of the Witnesses debut! There are great moments throughout, such as this thorough dressing down of Noel Reynolds and his third-rate "scholarship":

So what is this “recent scholarship” that counters the fact that the Book of Mormon’s reference to “five books of Moses” is anachronistic and could not have been made by someone like Lehi prior to the Jewish exile? Thompson cites two articles by LDS scholar Noel Reynolds, one published in Interpreter and the other a presentation given in Provo in 2020. Reynold’s work reaffirms his argument that the Brass Plates contained material related to Joseph Smith’s Book of Moses, published in the Pearl of Great Price. I’m not going to address Reynolds’ argument in detail. Interested readers should consider the Honor’s and subsequent Master’s thesis by Ph.D. student Colby Townsend which address this issue (Here).

Well, if this current article by Thompson made it through "Interpreter's" peer review in this state, can we expect much more from the Reynolds article? Probably not:

Moreover, and this seems to me to be quite important, even if Reynolds’ argument was correct that a book of Moses existed that reflects Joseph Smith’s Book of Moses, this would only mean that a book of Moses existed prior to the exile. Hence, the Book of Mormon’s reference to “five books of Moses,” i.e. a Pentateuch would still be anachronistic.

Brutal. Nearly every marquee Mopologist gets taken to the woodshed in this post:

This, however, is a misrepresentation of my position. I wasn’t suggesting that references to Cain and Abel are anachronistic. What I stated was that the story derives from the J source in Genesis. This makes the proposal that the Book of Mormon authors only had access to the E document (something that LDS apologist John Sorenson once argued) impossible. One of the central features of the Elohist account is that it only focuses upon the story of Israel. E does not contain a story of creation or an account of prehistory. Instead, E features a much tighter focus on Israel as a people. From E’s perspective, if a story is not specifically an “Israelite” account (like the stories of creation, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc.) then it was simply not worth addressing. What I suggested was that since the Book of Mormon is aware of the Cain and Abel (as well as Adam and Eve) story, it is quite problematic to assert that the Book of Mormon authors only had access to E.

Following the lead of previous Interpreter contributors such as Reynolds, Bradshaw, and Lindsey, Thompson is suggesting that a hypothetical book of Moses may have predated these documents, and that it included features of each of the documentary strands that appear in Genesis. This is a strange assertion in light of the following point Thompson presents regarding criticisms of the DH raised by traditional believers:

“Skeptics of the Documentary Hypothesis observe that none of these alleged source documents exist except in the minds of their hypothesizers” (p. 86).

The fact is these source documents do exist. They appear in the first five books of the Bible. We can see them there today.

Sorenson; Reynolds; Bradshaw; Lindsey; oh my! You have to admire the economy and compactness with which Bokovoy utterly destroys the whole Mopologetic edifice here. And Bokovoy's concluding remarks are epic:

Yet before LDS apologists seek to counter this extensive body of research, it would be best if they first sought to understand it. I suspect simply producing apologetic essays such as this, which make fantastic claims about the implications of recent scholarship, and which misrepresent the DH will ultimately do more harm than good for those trying to maintain religious devotion to LDS scripture.

Instead, I would suggest two possible approaches: 1. Believers such as Thompson could simply ignore the implications of mainstream scholarship and just choose to believe. This would never work for me, but it does for some. 2. Believers such as Thompson could accept these historical views about the Bible and shift their belief paradigms to accommodate the implications of scholarship. It is possible to do, and many believers in a variety of faith communities are able to make that approach work.

In my view, either approach would be superior to publishing apologetic work, which shows that the authors have had very little exposure to the topics they’re addressing.

Kudos to Bokovoy for a job well done. I predict that the Mopologists will have nothing to say in response to this devastating critique.

[Jersey Girl]

Enter David Bokovoy, looking simultaneously Santa Clausian and like he could pop your head as if it was a grape.

omg

[Gadianton]

This is a devastating indictment of Interpreters lack of peer review, Doctor Scratch. It's also par for the course of low quality articles since Interpreter's inception. Sic Et Non heavily promoted this article several days back. No doubt this article reflects Dan's own understanding of the documentary hypothesis, and that is the reason he was so excited about it. How embarrassing!

[Philo Sofee]

What a fantastic response from Bokovoy. And thank you Scratch for the heads up and analysis.

I am just to the point to where I shake my head every time Interpreter comes up with another article. Is it just me or has the slope of the f (x) = Interpreter Scholarly Competence - been continually going down through the years?
On one hand it is quite amusing and entertaining, on the other onw it makes ya wanna stand up jump up and down and shout "Hey morons! Get some valid peer review, you are making total fools of yourselves!"

[Doctor Scratch]

This is a devastating indictment of Interpreters lack of peer review, Doctor Scratch. It's also par for the course of low quality articles since Interpreter's inception. Sic Et Non heavily promoted this article several days back. No doubt this article reflects Dan's own understanding of the documentary hypothesis, and that is the reason he was so excited about it. How embarrassing!

Possibly so, Dean Robbers, and yet I find myself feeling magnanimous towards Dr. Peterson at the moment, and I can’t help but wonder if the pivot to the “Witnesses” movie was strategic. Given the pressure from the Heartlander movement and the Brethren’s unwillingness to publicly endorse a MesoAmerican model, it perhaps makes sense to shift focus to the witnesses. Because, hey: they still had a powerful religious experience, even if it was just about an anachronistic book that turns out to be fictional. This may be the moment you predicted—I.e., the shift to an “inspired fiction” model.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Thank you for this most excellent review Dr. Scratch. Just when I think that nothing from the mopologist camp would surprise me, something like this comes along. This is truly a black eye, not only to the unfortunate Thompson, but to the seemly flawed Interpreter review process. If memory serves, this is not the first time the quality of their peer review has been questioned. Maybe its time for the Interpreter augment their peer review pool with some seasoned academics with publishing chops. I wonder if Dr. Gee is available.

[Dr Exiled]

Of the two approaches for members/"lds scholars" to take that Dr. Bokovoy outlined in his critique and that Dr. Scratch quoted, I think the members should try and remain in the "just believe" camp and not pay attention to any of the outside true scholarship regarding the Bible and by implication, the lds cannon. The lds cannon doesn't make any sense other than that it was made up based on other made up scripture.

The "lds scholars" should make a pilgrimage to Dr. Bokovoy's house and find out how other faiths have dealt with the issues he raises in his critique. I hear Dr. Bokovoy is a good cook and just might treat the supposed lds scholars to some good bbq while explaining how to adapt belief to the real scholarship. It won't happen and that is a shame. Dr. Bokovoy is someone who really should be in LDS leadership if the church really wanted to stop the hemorrhaging. Or at least he should be consulted on how one could retain belief given all the evidence against.

[Moksha]

“If it could be demonstrated somehow that J is from the tenth century BCE, and that P is from the third century BCE, while E is from the second millennium BCE, and D was written during the Hoover administration, the literary evaluation of the text and the isolation of the sources on the grounds of narrative flow would be precisely the same” (p. 31).

What if these sources also included the 16th Century Translation Committee of Bards, as suggested by Dr. Royal Skousen? Using Twinkling of the Eye technology, what if they sent their interpretation in a counterclockwise rotation of the earth, enabling Proto-Uto-Aztecan ideas to reach the redactors right before including it into the Written Torah?

by the way, would this be worthy of an Interpreter article if I double spaced it? I could include a summary of Dr. Midgley's Mormon Cricket collection to pad it out a bit.

[Philo Sofee]

“If it could be demonstrated somehow that J is from the tenth century BCE, and that P is from the third century BCE, while E is from the second millennium BCE, and D was written during the Hoover administration, the literary evaluation of the text and the isolation of the sources on the grounds of narrative flow would be precisely the same” (p. 31).

What if these sources also included the 16th Century Translation Committee of Bards, as suggested by Dr. Royal Skousen? Using Twinkling of the Eye technology, what if they sent their interpretation in a counterclockwise rotation of the earth, enabling Proto-Uto-Aztecan ideas to reach the redactors right before including it into the Written Torah?

by the way, would this be worthy of an Interpreter article if I double spaced it? I could include a summary of Dr. Midgley's Mormon Cricket collection to pad it out a bit.

[Tom]

It appears that Interpreter rushed to post this piece as part of its quixotic quest to maintain a record of posting at least one article each week since August 2012.

Thompson: “The [Documentary] hypothesis claims that the Old Testament was probably compiled after the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity and that the compilation drew its text from four different Hebrew narrative traditions, each of which had its own agenda.”

What source does Thompson cite here? R.E. Friedman or J. Baden? No. A reputable Bible commentary? No. K. Barney’s Dialogue article? No. A Wikipedia entry? No. Thompson cites Richard G. Grant, “The Book of Mormon Brass Plates and Their Prophets,” Come to Zarahemla, archived article available at https://web.archive.org/web/20180903052 ... lates.html.

Who reviewed Thompson’s article before it was posted? Did Dr. Peterson read it?