Solid Examples Of Book Of Mormon Exegesis?

[Hashbaz]

In preparation for the upcoming semester, I'm trying to compile a list of articles or books that responsibly apply the standard methods of biblical exegesis to the Book of Mormon. Some of the readings I may require, others I may simply recommend (and others I may ignore). Do any articles stand out that effectively use one or more of the approaches listed below (or other approaches that I may have missed)? 

Obviously, multiple exegetical methods are often used within a single work, so for each piece you recommend it would be extremely helpful if you would tell me which methods you see the author relying on. I also wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on what might be some egregious examples where the methods were clearly misapplied or poorly executed. I have my own mental list, of course, but I'm curious to hear others' top picks to see if there's any kind of consensus, not only on what's best, but on how to label the different approaches that are used.

To be clear, I'm not asking that anyone go through this list and find examples for each and every one of them, I'm asking for recommendations for one or two articles on the Book of Mormon that you think are best, and also asking you to identify which exegetical method you think most accurately describes the approach that was used in your recommended articles.  

 

• Literary Criticism
• Narrative Criticism
• Rhetorical Criticism
• Lexical, Grammatical, and Syntactical Analysis
• Semantic or Discourse Analysis
   
• Social-Scientific Criticism
• Textual Criticism
• Historical Linguistics
• Form Criticism
• Tradition Criticism
• Source Criticism
• Redaction Criticism
• Historical Criticism
   
• Theological Exegesis
• Canonical Criticism
• Ideological Criticism/Liberationist Exegesis

[halconero]

Not really an article, but I once went through and searched out every instance (the Gospel Library app is actually better at this than lds.org) of the phrase "or rather" in the Book of Mormon. It really drove home the fact that there are really only 4 main writers in the Book, and that Mormon's main job was as a redactor and editor of scripture. I would recommend that study to anyone. It's easy, simple, short, but it helps unpack the writing of the Book of Mormon.

 

I just finished a degree with one of my majors in Textual Criticism of Ancient Christian texts.

Edited August 11, 2015 by halconero

[Hashbaz]

Thanks for the input, halconero. My favorite search tool for the Book of Mormon is hosted by University of Michigan (why they host it, I have no idea):
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/bool.html

 

They also have a boolean search for the KJV, which is very useful as well:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks for the input, halconero. My favorite search tool for the Book of Mormon is hosted by University of Michigan (why they host it, I have no idea):

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mormon/bool.html ...

 

Isn't there a Mormon-ish splinter group in the Michigan area?  Didn't some of Strang's devotees end up there, or something?  That might be why.

[Calm]

They do the Koran as well as a few Bible versions.

 

If I understand correctly, you can do a boolean search on any of their digital texts:

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/lib/colllist/

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/text/help/search-intro.html

 

But it does look that they may have devoted webpages to various scriptures.

[mapman]

For literary criticism there's Jared Hickman's "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse" published in American Literature. He compares it to Native American prophecy and argues about the intended meaning of the Book in regards to racial issues.

 

For source criticism I'd suggest Blake Ostler's "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source."

[Robert F. Smith]

Not really an article, but I once went through and searched out every instance (the Gospel Library app is actually better at this than lds.org) of the phrase "or rather" in the Book of Mormon. It really drove home the fact that there are really only 4 main writers in the Book, and that Mormon's main job was as a redactor and editor of scripture. .............................................................................

Some years ago, the late Mary Lee Treat took into account the difficulty of making scribal erasures during engraving on metal plates,^[1] showing how scribes instead overcame their errors or infelicitous descriptions by inserting the word “or,” or the phrase “or rather” (and similar phrases) in order to correct of clarify an already engraven, unchangeable text, as at Mosiah 7:8,

 

And they stood before the king, and were permitted, or rather commanded, that they should answer the questions . . .

 

Another powerful indicator of authentic scribal activity in engraving metal plates is Alma 13:16, which clearly should have been inserted immediately following 13:12, but was instead dropped during ancient dictation due to a Nephite scribal failure to maintain the proper verse sequence due to verses 12 and 16 having the same final line (homoeoteleuton), i.e., the Nephite scribe (Mormon?) was unable to maintain sequence while moving his eyes back and forth from one text to the other, although he finally noticed his error and picked up the lost verse three verses later. Herewith the correct sequence:

 

Alma 13:12-16

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

--------------------------- 

13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

 

This was not a mistake of Oliver Cowdery as scribe for Joseph, nor of Joseph Smith as he dictated the continuous text in 1829. For the Original Manuscript (O MS) itself contains the error, without any correction being attempted then (Oliver and the other scribes made regular corrections and insertions immediately, where they noticed the need) B nor in any subsequent manuscript or edition.  No one noticed the problem until it was pointed out recently by Grant Hardy.^[2]  This means that the error must go back to a much earlier scribe or editor, such as Mormon himself.

[1] Treat, “No Erasers,” Zarahemla Record, 13-14/5 (1981), reprinted in Recent Book of Mormon Developments (Independence: Zarahemla Research Foundation, 1984), I:54; D. Heater, “’No Erasers’ Update 2011,” Quetzal Codex, #2 (Spring 2011):2-5, online at http://www.quetzalarchaeology.org/ old-site/QC-Issue2.pdf ; Angela M. Crowell, “Hebraic Insights: ‘Or, or rather’ – A Newly Recognized Hebraism,” Qumran Quest, 5/2 (2000):1-3.

[2] G. R. Hardy, AThe Book of Mormon as a Literary (Written) Artifact,@ JBMS, 12/2 (2003):107-109,118.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, September 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 77-79. Online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=20 .

 

Robert F. Smith, ed.  Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., 3 vols.  Provo: FARMS, 1986-1987.  Reviewed by Melodie Moench Charles in Dialogue, 22/2 (Summer 1989):144-146.

 

David Bokovoy, “Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon,” chapter nine (191-214) in his Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis – Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford, 2014).  This is the first of three volumes on the OT, and he will have further comments on the Book of Mormon in future volumes.  You’ll want to contact Bokovoy for further suggestions since he teaches the Book of Mormon as Literature at the Univ. of Utah.

 

Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (OUP, 2010).

 

John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” 198-210, in Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981/ reprint FARMS Research Press, 1999).

 

Kevin Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue, 33/1 (Spring 2000):57-99.

 

John L. Sorenson, “Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue, 10/4 (Autumn 1977):31-39.

 

John L. Sorenson, Gordon C. Thomasson, and Robert F. Smith.  “Old World Languages in the New World,” FARMS Update, January 1986, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/ SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 29-31.  Online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=8 .

 

Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 6 parts (FARMS, 2004-2009).

 

J. N. Washburn, The Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon (SLC: Bookcraft, 1954). 

 

Robert K. Thomas, “A Literary Analysis of the Book of Mormon,” B. A. thesis (Reed College, 1947).

 

Richard Rust, Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon (SLC: Deseret Book, 1997).

 

Joseph M. Spencer and Jenny Webb, eds., Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: Reading 2 Nephi 26-27 (Salt Press, 2011).

 

Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Press 2012).

 

Adam S. Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salt Press, 2011/ reprint Maxwell Institute, 2014).

 

Krister Stendahl, "Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi," in T. G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 139-154, reprinted in Stendahl, Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Phila.: Fortress, 1984), 99-113.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

 

Robert F. Smith, “Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Update, September 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 77-79. Online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=20 .

 

Robert F. Smith, ed.  Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., 3 vols.  Provo: FARMS, 1986-1987.  Reviewed by Melodie Moench Charles in Dialogue, 22/2 (Summer 1989):144-146.

 

David Bokovoy, “Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon,” chapter nine (191-214) in his Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis – Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford, 2014).  This is the first of three volumes on the OT, and he will have further comments on the Book of Mormon in future volumes.  You’ll want to contact Bokovoy for further suggestions since he teaches the Book of Mormon as Literature at the Univ. of Utah.

 

Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (OUP, 2010).

 

John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” 198-210, in Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981/ reprint FARMS Research Press, 1999).

 

Kevin Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue, 33/1 (Spring 2000):57-99.

 

John L. Sorenson, “Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue, 10/4 (Autumn 1977):31-39.

 

John L. Sorenson, Gordon C. Thomasson, and Robert F. Smith.  “Old World Languages in the New World,” FARMS Update, January 1986, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/ SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 29-31.  Online at  http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=8 .

 

Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, 6 parts (FARMS, 2004-2009).

 

J. N. Washburn, The Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon (SLC: Bookcraft, 1954). 

 

Robert K. Thomas, “A Literary Analysis of the Book of Mormon,” B. A. thesis (Reed College, 1947).

 

Richard Rust, Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon (SLC: Deseret Book, 1997).

 

Joseph M. Spencer and Jenny Webb, eds., Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: Reading 2 Nephi 26-27 (Salt Press, 2011).

 

Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Press 2012).

 

Adam S. Miller, ed., An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32 (Salt Press, 2011/ reprint Maxwell Institute, 2014).

 

Krister Stendahl, "Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi," in T. G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 139-154, reprinted in Stendahl, Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Phila.: Fortress, 1984), 99-113.

 

Every time you do this it knocks my socks off.  Your database is an amazing resource all in itself.

[Kevin Christensen]

Don't forget Alan Goff:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/alan-goff/

Among others, when I get some time.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Nevo]

I'm asking for recommendations for one or two articles on the Book of Mormon that you think are best, and also asking you to identify which exegetical method you think most accurately describes the approach that was used in your recommended articles.

 

 

Literary Criticism

• Jared Hickman, "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse," American Literature 86, no. 3 (2014): 429–461.

   

• Elizabeth Fenton, "Open Canons: Sacred History and American History in The Book of Mormon," J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists 1, no. 2 (2013): 339–361.

 

Narrative Criticism

• Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

 

Source Criticism

• David P. Wright, "'In Plain Terms That We May Understand': Joseph Smith's Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12–13," in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 165–229.

   

• John Hilton III, "Old Testament Psalms in the Book of Mormon," in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament, ed. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Matthew J. Grey, and David Rolph Seely (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 291–311.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Nevo

[Kevin Christensen]

Some definitions might help. It's truth that non-specialists may not be familiar with specialist definitions and categories. I grabbed useful-seeming stuff from Wikipedia.

FWIW

Kevin C.

Literary Criticism

Literary criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature.

Narrative Criticism

Study of narrative criticism, therefore, includes form (fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry), genre (myth, history, legend, etc.), structure (including plot, theme, irony, foreshadowing, etc.) characterization, and communicator’s perspective.

Rhetorical Criticism

Rhetorical criticism refers to a process in which an individual analyzes symbolic artifacts (including words, phrases, images, gestures, performances, texts, films, and "discourse" in general) to discover how, and how well, they work: how they instruct, inform, entertain, move, arouse, perform, convince and, in general, persuade their audience, including whether and how they might improve their audience. Rhetorical criticism puts the focus on what a piece of work does, not what it is.[1] In short, rhetorical criticism seeks to understand how symbols act on people.

Lexical, Grammatical, and Syntactical Analysis

Semantic or Discourse Analysis

Social-Scientific Criticism

At the root of the Context Group's social-scientific method is the belief that biblical scholars have taken western cultural assumptions for granted when interpreting the Bible, an ancient document produced in a much different culture.

The key difference is that the modern western world is an individualistic, industrial society, whereas the society of the ancient Mediterranean world was collectivistic and agrarian.

The ancient Mediterranean was also a high-context society, where discourse took shared cultural values for granted. This contrasts with the modern western world, which is a low-context society in which discourse tends to be more specific and specialized (i.e. to particular groups, subcultures, etc.). According to the Context scholars, the interpreter must learn the cultural assumptions and values behind the text in order to understand it correctly. This involves understanding values such as honor and shame, for example, which Malina calls "pivotal cultural values."

Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in texts, both manuscripts and printed books. ...There are three fundamental approaches to textual criticism: eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing. Techniques from the biological discipline of cladistics are currently also being used to determine the relationships between manuscripts.

The phrase "lower criticism" is used to describe the contrast between textual criticism and "higher criticism", which is the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text.

Historical Linguistics

Historical linguistics, also called diachronic linguistics, is the scientific study of language change over time.

Form Criticism

Form criticism is a method of biblical criticism that classifies units of scripture by literary pattern and then attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission.[1] Form criticism seeks to determine a unit's original form and the historical context of the literary tradition.[1] Hermann Gunkel originally developed form criticism to analyze the Hebrew Bible. It has since been used to supplement the documentary hypothesis explaining the origin of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) and to study the Christian New Testament.

Tradition Criticism

Tradition history or criticism is a methodology of Biblical criticism that was developed by Hermann Gunkel. Tradition history seeks to analyze biblical literature in terms of the process by which biblical traditions passed from stage to stage into their final form, especially how they passed from oral tradition to written form. Tradition history/criticism is a sister discipline of form criticism--also associated with Gunkel, who used the results of source and form criticism to develop the history of tradition interpretation. Form criticism and tradition criticism thus overlap, though the former is more narrow in focus.

Source Criticism

Source criticism, as the term is used in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or redactor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used as a synonym.

Biblical source criticism originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of Classical antiquity (Homer's Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the Higher Criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism, also called Redaktionsgeschichte, Kompositionsgeschichte or Redaktionstheologie, is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. Redaction criticism regards the author of the text as editor (redactor) of his or her source materials. Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre; instead, it focuses on how the redactor(s) has shaped and molded the narrative to express his theological goals.

There are several ways in which redaction critics detect editorial activity, including:

The repetition of common motifs and themes (e.g., in Matthew's Gospel, the fulfillment of prophecy).

Comparison between two accounts. Does a later account add, omit, or conserve parts of an earlier account of the same event?

The vocabulary and style of a writer. Does the text reflect preferred words for the editor, or are there words that the editor rarely uses or attempts to avoid using. If the wording reflects the language of the editor, it points toward editorial reworking of a text, while if it is unused or avoided language, then it points toward being part of an earlier source.

Historical Criticism

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the text".[1]

The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regard to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret the literature of Israel as well as the history of Israel.[2]

Theological Exegesis

Exegesis (/ˌɛksəˈdʒiːsəs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

Canonical Criticism

Canonical criticism, sometimes called canon criticism or the canonical approach, is a way of interpreting the Bible that focuses on the text of the biblical canon itself as a finished product. It has been made popular by Brevard Childs, though he personally rejected the term.[1] Whereas other types of biblical criticism focus on the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism looks at the meaning the text in its final form has for the community which uses it.

Ideological Criticism/Liberationist Exegesis

Ideological criticism is a form of rhetorical criticism concerned with critiquing rhetorical artifacts for the dominant ideology they express while silencing opposing or contrary ideologies. According to Sonja Foss, “the primary goal of the ideological critic is to discover and make visible the dominant ideology or ideologies embedded in an artifact and the ideologies that are being muted in it”.[1] Foss has also mentioned the contribution to ideological criticism of several theoretical schools, including Marxism, Structuralism, cultural studies, and Postmodernism.

[Kevin Christensen]

So given some definitions,

Redaction Criticism, particularly in the way he looks at differences in the approaches of the editors, Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni.

Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon

Literary Criticism,

Eugene England on A Second Witness for the Logs: The Book of Mormon and Contemporary Literary Criticism

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1129&index=4

John Tvedtnes on Colophons in the Book of Mormon

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1111&index=5

Bruce Jorgenson, "The Dark Way to the Tree" in Literature of Belief

Alan Goff, "Boats, Beginnings, and Repetitions" in JBMS 1

Theological Exegesis

Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

Historical Criticism

Nibley

Alyson Von Feldt on "His Secret Is with the Righteous": Instructional Wisdom in the Book of Mormon

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2696&index=6

John W. Welch on Benjamin's Speech as a Prophetic Lawsuit

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=9

John Welch on King Benjamin's Speech in the Context of Ancient Israelite Festivals

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=8

Gordon Thomasson on "What's in a Name?" Book of Mormon Language, Names, and [Metonymic] Naming

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1385&index=2

Gordon Thomasson and Lisa Bolin Hawkins on "I Only Am Escaped to Tell Thee" Survivor Witnesses in the Book of Mormon"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=51

Source Criticism

John Welch on The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1129&index=9

Form Criticism

Eggington on "Our Weakness in Writing" Oral and Literate Culture in the Book of Mormon"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/william-g-eggington/

Rhetorical Criticism

John Welch on Benjamin's Speech: A Masterful Oration

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=5

Ideological Criticism

Carol Lynn Pearson, "Would Feminism have Saved the Nephites" in Sunstone

Kevin Christensen and Shauna Christensen, "Nephite Feminism Revisited" in the FARMS Review

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited August 13, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Hashbaz]

All of this is extremely helpful, thank you.