Review of Rosalynde Frandsen Welch, Ether: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020). 128 pages. $9.95 (paperback).

Abstract: The Book of Ether is a sometimes-overlooked gem of a text within the Book of Mormon, a history within a history that deserves careful and innovative investigation. Rosalynde Frandsen Welch offers such with a novel perspective in her entry in the Maxwell Institute’s series of “brief theological introductions” to the books within the Book of Mormon. The principal focus of Welch’s analysis is on issues concerning Moroni’s editorial purposes, how he interacts with his source text, and the ethics of his agenda for his abridgment of the Jaredite record. She critiques what she sees as Moroni’s lack of interest in the Jaredite record for its own sake and his attempts to “Christianize” the indigenous religion and culture of the former inhabitants of the land he occupies. Additionally, Welch presents Moroni as offering his future audience a “reader-centered theology of scripture” that seeks to transfer the authority of Scripture from the author to the reader. This review finds some of Welch’s proposals to be problematic but recognizes the great value of her beautifully written contribution to the academic study of the Book of Ether and the Book of Mormon.

Rosalynde Frandsen Welch is an independent scholar of Latter-day Saint literature, theology, and scripture. She earned a PhD from UC San Diego in early modern English literature. She is a member of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s advisory board and received a research grant from the Institute to write the manuscript for this study of the Book of Ether. Welch has published an impressive number and variety [Page 146]of scholarly works that can be found in academic journals such as BYU Studies, the Mormon Studies Review, and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, as well as in multiple blogs and in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The focus of this review is on her entry in the Maxwell Institute’s Book of Mormon: Brief Theological Introductions series, which looks at the Book of Ether.

Welch is a wondrous wordsmith, with a highly articulate and lucid writing style, so much so that I could honestly read her eloquent prose all day. The way she organizes her treatment of the Book of Ether is accessible, fluid, effective, and interesting to read. In this theological analysis of the Book of Ether, she builds upon the work of scholars such as Grant Hardy and Joseph Spencer and adds notable original perspectives in an effort to present this singular Jaredite/Nephite blend of inspired writings in a light that most readers would not have previously considered.

In Welch’s introductory remarks, she explains her approach to this volume:

My basic method in this study is threefold: (1) to make the best sense I can of the text’s language and structures, (2) to infer something of the writer’s intent, and then (3) to press beyond the plain sense and authorial intent to draw out emergent patterns of meaning at work in the passage. (pp. 12–13)

Readers should keep in mind that this collection from the Maxwell Institute is a series of “brief theological introductions,” not the standard verse-by-verse commentaries or intensive doctrinal expositions many may be used to seeing. Instead, Welch’s approach is to more broadly “search the book of Ether for themes at the heart of religion as it is experienced by believers” (p. 13). Although the author does occasionally touch briefly on particular points of the story of the brother of Jared and other highlights of the Jaredite record, it is clear from the outset that her principal focus is on what Moroni’s intentions are and how he is interacting with his source text.

Abstract: The verbal expression “we might have enjoyed,” as used in a complaint that Nephi attributes to his brothers, “we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance” (1 Nephi 17:21), reflects a use of the Hebrew verb yrš in its progressive aspect, “to enjoy possession of.” This meaning is evident in several passages in the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps most visibly in the KJV translation of Numbers 36:8 (“And every daughter, that possesseth [Hebrew yōrešet] an inheritance [naḥălâ] in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy [yîršû] every man the inheritance [naḥălat] of his fathers”) and Joshua 1:15 (“then ye shall return unto the land of your possession [lĕʾereṣ yĕruššatkem or, unto the land of your inheritance], and enjoy it [wîrištem ʾôtāh].” Examining Laman and Lemuel’s complaint in a legal context helps us better appreciate “land[s] of … inheritance” as not just describing a family estate, but as also expressing a seminal Abrahamic Covenant concept in numerous Book of Mormon passages, including the covenant implications of the resettlement of the converted Lamanites and reconverted Zoramites as refugees in “the land of Jershon” (“place of inheritance”).

In 1 Nephi 17:20–22, Nephi recalls the gist of his brothers’ complaints1 about leaving behind their family estate, “the land of … inheritance” [Page 124](1 Nephi 2:11; 3:22; 5:2; and 17:21), “at”2 or near Jerusalem and the concomitant abandonment of considerable material possessions (e.g., 1 Nephi 2:4; 3:16, 22, 26). This recollection reflects several significant Hebraisms: “Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy” (1 Nephi 17:21).3

In this study, I will examine how the complaint “we might have enjoyed our possessions in the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy” reflects the Hebraism “land of … inheritance,” as well as a possible polyptoton4 and an allusion to the tree of life in Lehi’s dream. I will further examine how the main verb in this complaint — enjoy — reflects a specific secondary meaning of the Hebrew verb yrš, “enjoy possession of.”5 The meaning of this verb in its secondary, progressive (or continuous) aspect is reflected in several important passages in the Hebrew Bi...

Abstract: In previous and pending publications I have proposed interpretations of various features of Nephi’s writings. In this paper I undertake a comprehensive discussion of the seven passages in which Nephi and his successor Jacob explain the difference between the large and the small plates and describe the divinely mandated profile for each. While most readers of the Book of Mormon have been satisfied with the simple distinction between the large plates in which the large plates are a comprehensive historical record of the Nephite experience and the small plates are a record of selected spiritual experiences, including revelations and prophecies, that approach has been challenged in some academic writing. What has been missing in this literature is a comprehensive and focused analysis of all seven of the textual profiles for these two Nephite records. In the following analysis, I invoke the insights of Hebrew rhetoric as developed by Hebrew Bible scholars over the past half century to articulate a vision of how these scattered explanations are designed and placed to support the larger rhetorical structures Nephi has built into his two books. The conclusions reached support the traditional approach to these texts.

The intent of this paper is not to advance either a comprehensive or a final interpretation of Nephi’s writings in First and Second Nephi. Rather, it is limited to a discussion of one dimension of those writings which has not previously been adequately identified and analyzed, but which should play an important role for any attempt at comprehensive interpretation. My own understanding of Nephi’s two books continues to evolve in important ways and benefits continually from the insights of other students of the text. I agree with Ben McGuire’s conclusion [Page 100]that both individuals and reading communities should keep their interpretations of this sacred text open to future insights.1

Readers of the Book of Mormon commonly assume the adequacy of a simple and straightforward explanation for the existence of Nephi’s Small Plates (sometimes abbreviated herein as SP).2 As explained at various points in the text, Nephi had undertaken a shorter version of his Large Plates (LP) record by selecting out the spiritual teachings, prophecies and revelations for a more focused presentation. But the adequacy of that explanation has come under considerable strain from two very different directions. In 1986 Fred Axelgard advanced the idea that the description provided for the Large Plates of Nephi as being more historical also applied to all of First Nephi and the first five chapters of Second Nephi.3 And now in an as yet unpublished working paper, I am advancing a new paradigm for interpretation of the Small Plates that both supports and pushes well beyond the traditional analysis by emphasizing Nephi’s use of Hebrew rhetoric4 to structure all of First [Page 101]and Second Nephi as a carefully calculated expansion and elaboration of Lehi’s vision of the Tree of Life.

Review of Donald W. Parry, 175 Temple Symbols and Their Meanings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020). 310 pages. $26.99 (hardcover).

Abstract: In a must-have book written for a Latter-day Saint audience, Donald Parry offers profound insights into 175 features of ancient and modern temples, including architectural features, aspects of ritual, and temple-related doctrine.

In this book written for a temple-going Latter-day Saint audience, Donald W. Parry, professor of Hebrew Bible at Brigham Young University, provides a personal yet intriguing introduction to the complex symbolism of temples in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although clearly oriented to latter-day temples and temple doctrine, the book repeatedly highlights the continuity between ancient Israelite and modern concepts of the temple.

The book is nicely bound and illustrated with more than 110 images, mostly color photographs. It includes a table of contents listing all 175 entries, an introduction laying out the purpose and principles of the book, entries organized in alphabetical order, a bibliography, and a single alphabetical index.

The selection of topics in the 175 entries covers temple ritual and general temple-related doctrine as well as temple architecture. Among entries relating to ritual, the topics of hand gestures and sacred vestments are well represented (see “Gestures of Approach,” “Hands and Covenants,” “Hand, Filling the Priest’s,” “Hand, Raised in Oath,” “Hands, Clasped,” “Hands, Laying On of,” “Hands, Laying On of, on Sacrificial Animals,” and “Hands — Prayer with ‘Uplifted Hands’”; “Garments,” “Symbols, Diverse,” “Vestments, Sacred,” “Vestments, [Page 94]Sacred, Anticipate the Resurrection,” “Vestments, Sacred, Point to Jesus Christ and His Atonement,” “Vestments, Sacred, Symbolism of,” and “Vestments, Sacred, Worn by God, Angels, and Redeemed Souls”). The emphasis in these areas reflects the similar emphasis in Parry’s previously published works. Other entries also deal with topics Parry has published about, including “Prayer Circle (Ancient and Modern)” and “Recommend, Temple” (see my comment 7, below).

Although this book contains much that deals with ancient temples and that is of interest to scholars (drawing on Parry’s decades-long professional engagement with ancient studies), it is not a purely scholarly treatment of temples. Indeed, the book is unapologetically devotional. Parry frequently bears his testimony of temple work in these pages. In the introduction, he shares inspiring personal experiences from his own life and those of his relatives (pp. 10–11, 25–26). Time and again throughout the book, he reminds the reader that temples — both ancient and modern — are Christ-centered (see, for example, pp. 16–18, 41–42, 43–44, 60–61, 162–63). Parry clearly sets forth a paradigm of temple doctrine in which ancient temples, the Bible, modern temples, and the teachings of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ represent one continuous whole. Thus, he quotes from modern prophets and apostles to illuminate the ancient temple, and he refers to the Bible to explain the modern temple (see pp. 5–8, 21, 25–26).

Many readers will be surprised to find their knowledge expanding as they encounter facts and insights they never considered before. To cite just one of my personal favorites, the entry on “Big Dipper (Ursa Major)” (pp. 65–67) mentions four temples that include representations of this constellation (Salt Lake, Washington DC, Winter Quarters Nebraska, and Anchorage, Alaska) and provides profound insights into the symbolism of these representations, one of which was originally given by Truman O. Angell, the architect of the Salt Lake Temple.

On the whole, this book is highly recommended for any reader who seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the modern temple and to enrich his or her experience...

Review of Kerry Muhlestein, God Will Prevail: Ancient Covenants, Modern Blessings, and the Gathering of Israel (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2021). 177 pages. $14.99 (hardcover).

Abstract: Covenants are central in the Latter-day Saint temple liturgy, our scriptural canon is infused with them, and General Authorities have increasingly drawn attention to their importance in the last half-century. Yet many Latter-day Saints are still unfamiliar with the form and function of covenants and the role they play in God’s plan of salvation. Kerry Muhlestein, well-informed by his academic training in ancient history and scripture, provides a lucid introduction to covenants for Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saint theology is, at its core, a covenant theology. Latter-day Saints believe that God first covenanted with man in the Garden of Eden. That covenant was perpetuated through Abraham, Moses, David, the Nephites and Lamanites, Jesus Christ, and finally through Joseph Smith in the restoration of the gospel. By entering into this new and everlasting covenant, Latter-day Saints promise to love and obey God and to love and serve others. In return, God promises exaltation and eternal life. This essentially describes God’s plan of salvation, yet many Latter-day Saints struggle to understand the importance of covenants and the brethren’s recent emphasis on “the covenant path.”1

[Page 80]Kerry Muhlestein provides an approachable introduction to and exploration of this covenant theology. His explanation of these ancient and sometimes esoteric concepts is easy to understand. Because of his rigorous academic background in ancient Near Eastern studies and Egyptology, he helps Latter-day Saints view covenants through the rich lens of antiquity, while keeping the concepts relevant to our day. Muhlestein’s book is comprised of eight chapters with three appendices. He first defines the new and everlasting covenant that encompasses God’s great plan of happiness, covering how it operated in the Old Testament, and focusing particularly on its implementation with Abraham. After a brief excursus to explain this covenant’s inclusivity, he details both its blessings and stipulations. The rest of the book largely deals with the covenant’s implementation in our lives — how to be a covenant people, how to gather Israel in the latter days, and how to rely on the grace of Jesus Christ for our shortcomings.

The Many Covenants in Israel’s History

One of the important contributions of this book is Muhlestein’s ability to simplify what at first appears to be a confusing assortment of different covenants with different people. Latter-day Saints are likely familiar with covenants made in the temple and thus familiar with the idea that God covenanted with Adam and Eve. However, God also made a formal covenant with Abraham, called the Abrahamic Covenant. Then God covenanted with the Israelites on Mt. Sinai to form the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses. God forged a covenant with King David and his line. Jesus’s teachings in the four gospels are sometimes referred to as the “new” covenant, which supersedes the Mosaic law. Then finally, in the latter days, God established a “new and everlasting covenant,” often thought to refer to celestial marriages.

While these may all seem like disparate covenants, Muhlestein argues that they are one and the same (pp. 4–6), so the New and Everlasting Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant.

Review of Alexander L. Baugh, Steven C. Harper, Brent M. Rogers, and Benjamin C. Pykles, eds. Joseph Smith and his First Vision: Context, Place, and Meaning (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021). 289 pages. $27.99 (hardcover).

Abstract: In the year 2020, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrated the 200th anniversary of the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith. As a part of honoring that seminal moment in the Church’s history, the Church History Symposium focused on the context, place, and meaning of the First Vision. Selected papers from the conference have been published in Joseph Smith and his First Vision: Context, Place, and Meaning, edited by Alexander L. Baugh, Steven C. Harper, Brent M. Rogers, and Benjamin C. Pykles, offering new insights and research into Joseph Smith’s theophany in the Sacred Grove that has inspired millions worldwide to ask of God as Joseph did. The papers selected for publication are well-written and provide a great deal of new scholarship relating to the dramatic theophany that Joseph Smith experienced, and, as such, it is a great addition to any Latter-day Saint’s library.

For Latter-day Saints, the year 2020 was especially a noteworthy year, marking the 200th anniversary of what is appropriately described as the founding event of the Restoration of the Gospel in modern times:

Two hundred years ago, on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul and trusted that God would direct him.

[Page 72]In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible.1

As a part of the efforts by Latter-day Saints to follow President Nelson’s urge to remember the First Vision,2 the biannual Church History Symposium hosted a range of scholars, professors, and other Latter-day Saints to delve into the beginning of our shared history, memory, and origins as Latter-day Saints. The symposium — miraculously held just before the Church made efforts to limit in-person meetings to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus — hosted multiple papers dealing with the context, place, or meaning of the First Vision for Joseph Smith and for Latter-day Saints in general. The insights shared in the published papers in this volume are a great addition to any Latter-day Saint’s library.

The fourteen papers selected are divided into four categories. The first category combines the three keynote addresses, given at the beginning and closing of the symposium. The next section deals with the historical context in which the First Vision should be understood, followed by a section relating to the Sacred Grove, the place where God the Father and God the Son appeared to the boy prophet. The fourth and final section deals with various theological or analytical lessons that can be drawn from the First Vision, and modern efforts to portray and teach the First Vision to a growing Church.

The first keynote paper is from President Dallin H. Oaks,

Abstract: Nephi quotes or alludes to four distinct Old Testament passages — Genesis 22:18; Isaiah 29:14; Isaiah 49:22–23; and Isaiah 52:10 — twice each in 1 Nephi 22:6, 8–12. These four texts form the basis of his description of how the Lord would bring to pass the complete fulfillment of the promises in the Abrahamic covenant for the salvation of the human family. These texts’ shared use of the Hebrew word gôyim (“nations” [> kindreds], “Gentiles”) provides the lexical basis for Nephi’s quotation and interpretation of these texts in light of each other. Nephi uses these texts to prophesy that the Lord would act in the latter-days for the salvation of the human family. However, Nephi uses Isaiah 29:14 with its key-word yôsīp (yôsip) to assert that iterative divine action to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant — taking the form of “a marvelous work and a wonder” — would be accomplished through a “Joseph.” Onomastic wordplay involving the names Abram⁄Abraham and Joseph constitute key elements in 1 Nephi 22:8–12.

Some of Nephi’s most sophisticated and significant prophetic uses of Isaiah’s writings involve appropriations of Isaiah 11:11–12 and Isaiah 29:14. For example, in 2 Nephi 25:17 he merges these two prophecies to create his own prophecy of the latter-day gathering of Judah and Israel: “And the Lord will set his hand again [yôsîp] the second time to restore his people from their lost and fallen state [Isaiah 11:11]. Wherefore, he will proceed [yôsīp (or yôsip)] to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the children of men [Isaiah 29:14].” As has been argued elsewhere,1 Nephi interprets these two Isaianic prophecies in light of [Page 52]each other on the basis of their mutual use of the Hebrew verb yāsap, “to add”; “continue to do, carry on doing”;2 “increase, have more”;3 Hiphil (causative), “increase,” “to do again, more.”4 Nephi’s evident juxtaposition of the homophonous and morphologically-similar forms yôsîp (Hiphil, third-person masculine singular jussive) and yôsīp/ yôsip (Qal masculine singular participle)5 evokes the name “Joseph” (yôsēp, “may he [God] add”).

Abstract: The Book of Mormon, being an ancient book, was originally written without typographic punctuation and employs verbal punctuation instead. This article looks at the use of “and now” as verbal punctuation in the Book of Mormon. The phrase is used to mark major breaks in the text, not only for chapters but also within chapters of the text. The Book of Mormon usage is borrowed from Classical Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew used before the exile) and follows the pattern set by pre-exilic Hebrew scribes. While this usage dropped in the Old World after the Babylonian exile as Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the major language spoken, the Book of Mormon preserved the usage until the end of Nephite civilization.

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd; width: 100%; margin: auto;} td, th {border: 1px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} th {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #373737 !important; font-size: 100% !important; text-transform: none !important; line-height: 1.5 !important} .centered td, .centered th {text-align: center !important;} .right td, .right th {text-align: right !important;} td.left, th.left {text-align: left !important;} td.centered, th.centered {text-align: center !important;} td.right, th.right {text-align: right !important;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff; padding: 0 5px !important} p.caption-text {text-align: center !important; margin-top: 1em !important; font-weight: 700;} .chiasm-b {padding-left: 2em;} .chiasm-c {padding-left: 4em;} .chiasm-d {padding-left: 6em;} .chiasm-e {padding-left: 8em;} .chiasm-f {padding-left: 10em;} .chiasm-g {padding-left: 12em;} p.caption {margin-top: 1em !important; text-align: center !important;}

According to John Gilbert, the typesetter, the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon was unpunctuated: “Every Chapter, if I remember correctly, was one solid paragraph, without a punctuation mark, from beginning to end.”1 This is in keeping with many ancient languages and scripts that work without punctuation marks. Ancient languages tend to do without typographic punctuation; they use words for punctuation instead. This verbal punctuation provides the signposts that control and structure the flow of the narrative.

Historical Examples of Verbal Punctuation

Sentences in Anatolian languages like Hittite and Luwian, usually start with a particle to which various enclitic particles are attached. The [Page 34]particle functions as verbal punctuation because it signals where a new sentence starts. Consider, for example, the simple Hittite sentence:

nu-wa-ra-aš TI-an-zaNow he will live.2

The Hittite particle nu “now” (the Hittite and English words are, in fact, cognates)3 functions as verbal punctuation to let the sentence start.

Abstract: This paper compares the Book of Mormon’s subordinate that usage with what is found in the King James Bible, pseudo-archaic writings, and the greater textual record. In this linguistic domain, the Book of Mormon manifests as thoroughly archaic, and it surpasses all known pseudo-archaic writings in breadth and depth of archaism. The implications of this set of linguistic data indicate that the translation as originally dictated by Joseph Smith cannot plausibly be explained as the result of Joseph’s own word choices, but it is consistent with the hypothesis that the wording was somehow provided to him.

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd; width: 100%; margin: auto;} td, th {border: 1px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} th {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #373737 !important; font-size: 100% !important; font-weight: 700 !important; text-transform: none !important; line-height: 1.5 !important} .centered td, .centered th {text-align: center !important;} .right td, .right th {text-align: right !important;} td.left, th.left {text-align: left !important;} td.centered, th.centered {text-align: center !important;} td.right, th.right {text-align: right !important;} table.noborder, table.noborder td{border: 0px solid #ffffff; padding: 0 5px !important} td h2 {margin: .8em 0 !important;} p.caption-text {text-align: center !important; margin-top: 1em !important; font-weight: 700;} .chiasm-b {padding-left: 2em;} .chiasm-c {padding-left: 4em;} .chiasm-d {padding-left: 6em;} .chiasm-e {padding-left: 8em;} .chiasm-f {padding-left: 10em;} .chiasm-g {padding-left: 12em;} p.caption {margin-top: 1em !important; text-align: center !important;}

Book of Mormon excerpt with an archaic subordinate that:“after that they had hid themselves, I Nephi crept into the city”

(1 Nephi 4:5)1

In 1 Nephi 4:5, archaic subordinate that usage (also called pleonastic that in the literature)2 involves the time conjunction after. This “after that S” usage (where S stands for a sentence-like subordinate clause) is frequently found in the King James Bible (74 times by one count, if we include the Apocrypha, which was often present in earlier Bibles). Yet as we shall see, this particular archaic subordinate that usage, as well as [Page 2]subordinate that in general, occur to a limited extent in pseudo-archaic texts of the 18th and 19th centuries. The reason for this is twofold: some biblical subordinate that usage is only lightly represented in the King James text (≤ 5 times), and subordinate that usage “declin[ed] rapidly in the 17th century to such an extent that it became virtually obliterated towards the end of that same century.”3

I will first review biblical types of archaic subordinate that usage, then pseudo-archaic usage, and then the types found in the original Book of Mormon text. Pseudo-archaic writings constitute a control group that is important to consider (see below and the final section of the appendix for how these texts were chosen). The approach taken here is not to assume that any biblical usage was automatically reproducible by Joseph Smith, as a biblical imitator, since such an assumption is not a principled, rigorous approach.

Abstract: Can people be good without believing in God? Obviously, yes. They can. Is atheistic naturalism capable of supplying a foundation for morality? That is a separate question, to which more than a few theists have answered No. However, a relatively new book by a very prominent student of religion and society suggests otherwise. A rational morality can, it argues, be founded upon atheistic naturalism — but it will necessarily be a modest and quite limited one, lacking universal scope and without a belief in human rights as objective “moral facts.”

The striking statement that, “if God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted,” is often attributed to the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881) and, more specifically, to perhaps his greatest novel, The Brothers Karamazov, which was first published in 1880. Theists have used the statement to argue that the alternative to belief in God is moral nihilism. Absent a grounding in the divine, so the argument goes, human moral systems are without foundation — and, thus, are likely to crumble in the face of human self-interest, error, and corruption. At best, we will be left with the world described by the prophet Isaiah, a world of “slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine,” in which the shallow refrain is “let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die” (Isaiah 22:13). At worst, as I discuss shortly, human life will more closely resemble that of the “state of nature” portrayed by Thomas Hobbes in the thirteenth chapter of his 1651 classic, Leviathan: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”1

[Page viii]Shakespeare’s Macbeth famously captures the cynical and disenchanted mood of such a devalued world:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrowCreeps in this petty pace from day to dayTo the last syllable of recorded time.And all our yesterdays have lighted foolsThe way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stage,And then is heard no more. It is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing.2

In recent years, however, atheists seeking to rebut the theistic argument — and others, as well — have commonly denied that such a statement even occurs in The Brothers Karamazov. Perhaps, some will allow, it’s a decent though fairly loose paraphrase; others refuse to grant even that.

It appears, though, that Dostoevsky really did say “If God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted.”3 Or, at least, that his fictional character Ivan Karamazov did. Whether the statement accurately represents Karamazov’s actual viewpoint, of course, let alone Dostoevsky’s, is a separate question. (Presumably, not everything said by Iago or Macbeth or Richard III represents the views of Shakespeare.)

But the more important question, plainly, is whether it’s really true that “if God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted.” Does atheism actually entail moral nihilism? Please note that the question isn’t whether or not atheists can behave ethically or be morally good. Obviously, they can. Many have been and many continue to be. The question is whether,