Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The textual transmission of the Book of Abraham.


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Who are these straw men that say "fiction is fine"? Seems to me that your phrasing implies a reduction to purely literary text that any believer or sustainer of scripture would reject. And, sure, this view of scripture could cause certain metaphysical claims to collapse, but that would be a better thing, as those generally arise out of a misunderstanding of language anyways.

Umm. Lots of people say fiction is fine. Why do you see it as a strawman? It's a rather explicit prominent position. There's even quite regular posters here who explicitly embrace such a position. It's basically Ricouer's scripture as symbol position.

Some see there being a real God who inspires the fiction whereas others are perhaps closer to the atheist "religion without religion" position I mentioned in the other thread. But that most definitely has a ton of explicit adherents. Heck, there's a strong postmodern position that all history is fiction. " We know that such truths are really 'useful fictions' that are in discourse by virtue of power (somebody has to put and keep them there) and power uses the term 'truth' to exercise control." (Jenkins, Re-Thinking History)

19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Joe Swick and Cheryl Bruno have written drafts of most of the chapters for their book. Joe recently has a series of strokes that have stalled the project, but it could be out late this year or early 2020. From what I've read, it's fantastic. Joe is incredibly versed in Masonic history, and the book does a tremendous job of showing just how influential Masonry was in the early 19th century. Nick Literski left Mormonism due to the combination of his research on Mormonism and Masonry and the difficulties he faced after coming out. He handed over his research to Joe and Cheryl to use. Right not the best in print is Michael Homer's Joseph's Temples, but it reads more like a collection of notes and doesn't seem to really understand Masonic history or lore.

Thanks. Nick was who I was thinking of but for some reason couldn't remember his name. (Perils of school starting this week and having to get kids up early while still dealing with teething babies in the middle of the night) That's great Joe actually finished his work. I've had lot of interesting discussions with him over the years. I hope he's able to reign in some of the more mystical aspects so he can produce a more mainstream history type of book. Hopefully Cheryl Bruno (whom I'm not that familiar with) can do that. That's fantastic news that Nick gave his notes to them. I'm looking forward to this now.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment

Before I respond, could you clarify whether your objection is with the term or the content? Because I may be misinterpreting you. If your objection is the term even though you agree with the content by those who use the term, could you clarify why that is? My sense in our discussions is that you object to certain terms like "fiction," "leave the church," etc. even though you might agree with what people mean by them.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Before I respond, could you clarify whether your objection is with the term or the content? Because I may be misinterpreting you. If your objection is the term even though you agree with the content by those who use the term, could you clarify why that is? My sense in our discussions is that you object to certain terms like "fiction," "leave the church," etc. even though you might agree with what people mean by them.

When someone, such as you, uses "fiction," they seem to mean that the texts are somehow less than scripture and are simply non-factual stories. "Leaving the Church" typically denotes a complete disaffiliation and rejection of belief. My objection is to what people mean when they use those terms or phrases.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

When someone, such as you, uses "fiction," they seem to mean that the texts are somehow less than scripture and are simply non-factual stories. "Leaving the Church" typically denotes a complete disaffiliation and rejection of belief. My objection is to what people mean when they use those terms or phrases.

OK, really confused. Aren't the people described as "fiction" proponents explicitly saying they are non-factual stories? It still seems like a connotation not content issue. It seems what's at issue isn't whether the stories are non-factual but how meaningful they are. But of course non-factual stories unabashedly called stories can be deeply meaningful. I'm also not sure what "less than scripture" means. Certainly no one says parables, which are scripture, are problematic. 

Likewise if someone doesn't attend Church, doesn't do anything with the Church and rejects belief in the Church, by your description above that'd be "leaving the Church" even if they don't like the phrase. Which aspect of that does not apply to David Bokovoy? (Earnestly asking since I didn't listen to the full Mormon Stories given the lack of transcripts and Dehlin's tendency to make interminably long podcasts)

Again this really sounds like people don't like the terms because they have negative connotations even though the content is accurate.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 Heck, even if we found some metal plates about him from the relevant time period that wouldn't necessarily imply he was real.

But I think theologically there is a big difference. And I do think the theology affects what apologetic is considered acceptable. Indeed I think the reason why Bokovoy's pure catalyst model is dismissed by so many is ultimately on theological grounds.

So here we go again. On the top you say that scholarly research doesn't matter in on the bottom you imply that it does. Which is it?

You are clearly making distinctions between scholarly and theological grounds. So define those distinctions please.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It still seems like a connotation not content issue.

The connotation is part of what is meant when those terms and phrases are used. If I disagree with the connotation, then I disagree with "what people mean by them."

Just as you exemplified earlier, those throwing around the word "fiction" to describe others' beliefs do so with an implied dichotomy where "fiction" is something that scripture is essentially not--that it's less than what true believers in scripture accept as scripture. For the same reason, while you might frequently see those who sustain the Bible as scripture describe the parables as not representing actual historical events, you rarely seem them described as "fictions" created by Jesus.

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Likewise if someone doesn't attend Church, doesn't do anything with the Church and rejects belief in the Church

Your phrasing here seems to imply--as Nelson is trying to force--a complete and singular understanding of Mormonism with orthodox membership and active formal participation with the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wherein one is either fully in or fully out. This I reject. Like with any relationship--particularly relationships with a community--a person can have varying degrees of how much--if at all--they want to participate with members of that community while not rejecting or separating themselves from persons in that community. If a person's view of "the Church" is more of that as a community of believers with varying degrees of belief and participation rather than an institution that one either upholds or rejects, then it makes easy sense to talk about changing aspects of that relationship without leaving it.

I can't speak for David, but I know that he and I share very similar views and positions, and I reject the notion that I have "left the Church," largely because I still view myself as part of the community despite my inactivity and agnosticism on most things.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So here we go again. On the top you say that scholarly research doesn't matter in on the bottom you imply that it does. Which is it?

I think I was clear that one can appropriate figures in productive ways. That's fine but one shouldn't say that's what the philosopher in question was arguing. Thus the Heideggarian reading of Plato or Kant isn't really fair to the text itself. (Of course Heidegger might say it's reading in terms of the questions and not the answers) The question of whether one is being fair to the philosopher is determined by the texts and the arguments on how to read those texts. In some places the text is ambiguous enough that there is no consensus. (Say Heidgger, particularly one ambiguous passage in Being and Time, as a realist vs. idealist) My appeal to Derrida as a realist is I think defensible, although one has to qualify what one means by realist. (See for instance this NDPR review) I mean it in a Peircean sense and I think Derrida's interview usually published at the end of Limited Inc makes this a very defensible reading that other scholars do share even if it's not a majority opinion.

So ultimately I'm getting at the question of what's a defensible reading in terms of history of philosophy and what's productive. They're really two different issues. Further within what's defensible there's the question of what's the majority reading versus minority readings. There's also the issue that what's considered defensible changes with time as arguments are further refined. (You can quickly see how this ties into pragmatist conceptions of philosophy, particularly the Peircean sort)

The complaint is that you point to texts that you read in one way, but which the majority of philosophers including specialists on the figures in question, read in quite a different fashion. My point is just that there's nothing wrong with your reading them that way. But when you point to the text as if this is the obvious way to read them that's a big problem in communication. In the same way when you point to deflation, which clearly is persuasive to you, as if that answers everything that's problematic since it's not persuasive to even most philosophers let alone someone without a philosophical background.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

OK, really confused. Aren't the people described as "fiction" proponents explicitly saying they are non-factual stories? It still seems like a connotation not content issue. It seems what's at issue isn't whether the stories are non-factual but how meaningful they are. But of course non-factual stories unabashedly called stories can be deeply meaningful. I'm also not sure what "less than scripture" means. Certainly no one says parables, which are scripture, are problematic. 

Likewise if someone doesn't attend Church, doesn't do anything with the Church and rejects belief in the Church, by your description above that'd be "leaving the Church" even if they don't like the phrase. Which aspect of that does not apply to David Bokovoy? (Earnestly asking since I didn't listen to the full Mormon Stories given the lack of transcripts and Dehlin's tendency to make interminably long podcasts)

Again this really sounds like people don't like the terms because they have negative connotations even though the content is accurate.

"The content is accurate"?

To what?

Isn't it signs all the way down? Please reply without the letter combination "ism" in your reply. 

Language itself IS connotation, and you are implying correspondence theory all the way down, not signs.

There seems to be no recognition of the ambiguity of what you are saying.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I was clear that one can appropriate figures in productive ways. That's fine but one shouldn't say that's what the philosopher in question was arguing. Thus the Heideggarian reading of Plato or Kant isn't really fair to the text itself. The question of whether one is being fair to the philosopher is determined by the texts and the arguments on how to read those texts. In some places the text is ambiguous enough that there is no consensus. (Say Heidgger, particularly one ambiguous passage in Being and Time, as a realist vs. idealist) My appeal to Derrida as a realist is I think defensible, although one has to qualify what one means by realist. (See for instance this NDPR review) I mean it in a Peircean sense and I think Derrida's interview usually published at the end of Limited Inc makes this a very defensible reading that other scholars do share even if it's not a majority opinion.

So ultimately I'm getting at the question of what's a defensible reading in terms of history of philosophy and what's productive. They're really two different issues. Further within what's defensible there's the question of what's the majority reading versus minority readings. 

The complaint is that you point to texts that you read in one way, but which the majority of philosophers including specialists on the figures in question, read quite a different fashion. My point is just that there's nothing wrong with your reading them that way. But when you point to the text as if this is the obvious way to read them that's a big problem in communication.

You didn't answer the question, as usual, and as usual your reply seems to come out of secondary sources about the history of philosophy.  That's nice but the history of philosophy is not relevant to the answer.

Please just answer the question.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"The content is accurate"?

To what?

To what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content.

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Isn't it signs all the way down? Please reply without the letter combination "ism" in your reply. 

Yes.

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Language itself IS connotation, and you are implying correspondence theory all the way down, not signs.

Possibly yes to the first part (depending upon what you intend by "connotation") and no to the second. After all it might be signs all the way down but with a stable meaning all the way down.

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You didn't answer the question, as usual, and as usual your reply seems to come out of secondary sources about the history of philosophy.  That's nice but the history of philosophy is not relevant to the answer.

Please just answer the question.

I have no idea what your question is then. I thought I explicitly answered it. You asked, "On the top you say that scholarly research doesn't matter in on the bottom you imply that it does. Which is it?" I replied that it doesn't matter for productive appropriation but it does matter for being fair to the texts in a scholarly sense.

Not sure what to say beyond that. I even gave examples to clarify the point I was making and to argue for it. 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

..............................................

So you're saying there was in the past to our papyri a Jewish scribe who used the vignettes to illustrate a pre-existing "pseudepigrapha" and that a later Egyptian scribe readded the book of breathings to the middle? I confess that seems overly complicated.

Jewish redactors/tradents in Egypt did not see pseudepigraphons about Abraham as pseudepigraphic (that is our learned designation), but rather as authentic sources coming from Abraham through the millennia of copying and transmission.  We have plenty of Jewish sources of this sort in Egypt, biblical texts, magical papyri, apocalypses, legal documents, etc., being passed on.  Some ended up in a Cairo Genizah.  Just how the particular document we call the Book of Abraham came to be we do not know, and we do not have a copy of it in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Egyptian.  Whether a copy ended up in an Egyptian tomb by accident or on purpose is unknown to us (an Egyptian may have been responsible).  That the Jewish scribe thought that some unrelated illustrations could do double duty for the BofA seems apparent, but precisely how they (the hypocephalus and the two Book of Breathings illus) were configured with the actual BofA papyrus is not clear.  It would not be at all unusual if the two separate documents were attached in some way.

Link to comment

(Weirdly I'd posted something a while ago but it appears gone off the forum - I'll try and see if I can do it again)

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

The connotation is part of what is meant when those terms and phrases are used. If I disagree with the connotation, then I disagree with "what people mean by them."

But you're not just disagreeing with the connotation you're disagreeing even with its use. After all the person who uses the term fiction, as you note, is typically making an argument about the implications of all scripture being non-historical/factual. Someone may disagree with that but if they say I shouldn't use the word I think they're making a stronger claim. One I just can't agree with.

Consider for example the labels pro-life and pro-choice. Each group tends to disagree with the connotation of the term by the other side. Yet it seems somewhat silly to demand that in discussion they not use those terms simply because people don't like the connotations. Especially when what they're ultimately arguing for are exactly those connotations. Unless a connotation is particularly offensive, it seems difficult to argue that people shouldn't use the term.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Your phrasing here seems to imply--as Nelson is trying to force--a complete and singular understanding of Mormonism with orthodox membership and active formal participation with the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wherein one is either fully in or fully out. This I reject.

I reject that too. However if someone doesn't believe the basic truth claims, doesn't attend and doesn't really engage, it's hard not to see it applying. I certainly hope they come back to Church, but I honestly can't even see how by your use you see me misusing the term.

(I also don't think Nelson is trying to force an all-in or all-out mindset either - from what I can tell he also rejects it although clearly he wishes people were all in)

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That the Jewish scribe thought that some unrelated illustrations could do double duty for the BofA seems apparent, but precisely how they (the hypocephalus and the two Book of Breathings illus) were configured with the actual BofA papyrus is not clear.  It would not be at all unusual if the two separate documents were attached in some way.

It would seem important to at least be able to tell a plausible story there as otherwise this model seems a bit problematic.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Joseph didn't need to though. For all those connections that people want to make between the BofA and ancient traditions of him, there are similar (and better) connections to Biblical commentaries and Masonic lore. (I wish Brent Metcalfe would publish more of his research on this. Chatted with him a month or so ago for a while as he detailed much of this.) 

That is a constant assertion, but it remains to be demonstrated.  The relevant Abrahamic traditions have been gathered by Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee in their massive Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS/ISPART, 2001), and I have discussed some of the many items not available to Joseph Smith in my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9 online Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It would seem important to at least be able to tell a plausible story there as otherwise this model seems a bit problematic.

For both the BofM and BofA, the lack of the original plates or papyrus is indeed problematic.  However, even in translation, such documents can still be subjected to internal analysis.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But you're not just disagreeing with the connotation you're disagreeing even with its use.

Because the use invokes the connotation. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp (--a phrase uttered by Wittgensteinians every 6 minutes).

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

but if they say I shouldn't use the word I think they're making a stronger claim.

You can use whatever words you want. You'll just have to live a frustrating life of people annoyed by your technical appeal to dictionaries when the meaning of language is found in how communities use that language.

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Consider for example the labels pro-life and pro-choice. Each group tends to disagree with the connotation of the term by the other side. Yet it seems somewhat silly to demand that in discussion they not use those terms simply because people don't like the connotations.

The difference is that few mean those connotations when using them--well, at least few seem to want to claim that those on the left are pro-death, whereas anti-choice may still be apt since abortion restrictions (besides for protecting the health/life of women from dangerous pre-modern-medicine procedures) originated alongside prohibitions on contraceptives as a means of controlling women's sexual behavior.

 

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

However if someone doesn't believe the basic truth claims, doesn't attend and doesn't really engage, it's hard not to see it applying.

But you're presupposing what they take as "basic truth claims" and "engagement" or even "attendance"--and are interpreting all of those in relation to your own views of the corporate institution based in Salt Lake. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The relevant Abrahamic traditions have been gathered by Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee in their massive Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS/ISPART, 2001),

And to complete the project, additional volumes need to be made of 19th-century sources, which Hauglid agrees with.

Added: I don't have time to read your piece right now, but based on a quick skim it seems to depend on a lot of assumptions on your end. I really wish Brent would publish his research, because I found what he detailed to me to be quite convincing.

Edited by the narrator
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Because the use invokes the connotation. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp (--a phrase uttered by Wittgensteinians every 6 minutes).

Yes, but if the connotation is assumed and even argued for I don't see why that's a problem. And of course I'm not a Wittgesnteinian <grin>

So I get what you are trying to do and why you're trying to do it. But I'm not sure you've given a compelling reason for stopping. Unless of course you intrinsically find the term "fiction" offensive. In which case I'd choose an other word immediately.

I was just trying to understand what you were saying.

35 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You can use whatever words you want. You'll just have to live a frustrating life of people annoyed by your technical appeal to dictionaries when the meaning of language is found in how communities use that language.

But isn't the community in question here the Mormon community? Aren't you undermining your argument by making that appeal? After all to the vast majority of Mormons scripture as fiction is hugely problematic and they assume the very connotation you object to. Likewise their sense for what it means to leave the Church seems to apply to David, whether he or you like that connotation. Put an other way, I'm not appealing to dictionaries in the least. Quite the opposite. I'm using the community use, being surprised you object to that use, and trying to understand why and whether I should change. I'm certainly open to changing. I try to be polite with such things. I just don't see a problem using "fiction" to describe non-factual scripture, for instance. After all I agree with the connotation that you outline as well as its denotation. So what's the problem?

35 minutes ago, the narrator said:

But you're presupposing what they take as "basic truth claims" and "engagement" or even "attendance"--and are interpreting all of those in relation to your own views of the corporate institution based in Salt Lake. 

Not at all. They can use whatever language they want. I have to then understand why they're using the terms they do and whether I agree I should use them.

I'm certainly not demanding that you or they use my language. I was just trying to understand what you were saying and whether I should change my language. I really do take language use seriously and try not to offend. Even if I don't agree with someone else's use.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Robert,

Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

Under this proposed scenario, and assuming the BofA was on the interior end of the Hor scroll, then what you are suggesting would entail the first scribe taking a blank scroll and creating the Hor scroll after which the second scribe would take the same scroll and add on the BofA in which the second scribe made references to the facsimiles that the first scribe had drawn. Then the scroll was given to those responsible for burying Hor who would have placed it under his crossed arms. And I am guessing the reason the BofA would have been acceptable to bury with Hor was that those responsible for burying Hor  considered an important document?

Not quite.  The Book of Breathings and the hypocephalus would be very important to traditional Egyptians, and placing them in a tomb with a loved one would be a significant and normal gesture.  The BofA would be irrelevant to that consideration from the traditional Egyptian POV.

However, it was entirely normal for unrelated documents to be included on the same papyrus, and such documents could be and were added by others at different times.  In other cases, papyri were erased and reused (we can see under the erasures and read the originals through advanced tech).  Because we do not have the original of the BofA, we do not understand the original configuration of these docs.  However, through close internal analysis of the English BofA, we can be sure that it is an authentic ancient document (some people see it as a pseudepigraphon from late antiquity).

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

And to complete the project, additional volumes need to be made of 19th-century sources, which Hauglid agrees with.

Added: I don't have time to read your piece right now, but based on a quick skim it seems to depend on a lot of assumptions on your end. I really wish Brent would publish his research, because I found what he detailed to me to be quite convincing.

I make no assumptions in that piece.  It is based on standard Egyptology and upon actual, known Jewish history of late antiquity.  I cite all my sources.  Nearly all of what I discuss therein could not have been known in the early 19th century.  Even the greatest scholars of that day could not have managed to create such an authentic pseudepigraphon.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But isn't the community in question here the Mormon community? Aren't you undermining your argument by making that appeal? After all to the vast majority of Mormons scripture as fiction is hugely problematic and they assume the very connotation you object to. Likewise their sense for what it means to leave the Church seems to apply to David, whether he or you like that connotation. Put an other way, I'm not appealing to dictionaries in the least. Quite the opposite. I'm using the community use, being surprised you object to that use, and trying to understand why and whether I should change. I'm certainly open to changing. I try to be polite with such things. I just don't see a problem using "fiction" to describe non-factual scripture, for instance. After all I agree with the connotation that you outline as well as its denotation. So what's the problem?

This all illustrates the point. Referring to the BofM as "fiction" and talking about "leaving the Church" both come from the IMO incredibly naive views of the faith that take a dichotomous black and white view of the religion. As DZ Phillips would say, their use is parasitic upon such views. I frequently joke about how faith crises result in black and white Mormons transitioning to white and black postMormons. Both groups might embrace the language of "fiction" and "leaving the Church" because they both share the same naive black/white white/black dichotomy and share the assumptions that those words have when they use them.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, the narrator said:

And to complete the project, additional volumes need to be made of 19th-century sources, which Hauglid agrees with.

Added: I don't have time to read your piece right now, but based on a quick skim it seems to depend on a lot of assumptions on your end. I really wish Brent would publish his research, because I found what he detailed to me to be quite convincing.

Hopefully he'll publish it soon. I've read a lot of masonic literature available but most of the parallels I've found you really have to squint to make work. (IMO) But the very nature of such things is that not all of it is easily available online. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a lot I've missed. Ditto with hermetic, platonic and related texts.

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This all illustrates the point. Referring to the BofM as "fiction" and talking about "leaving the Church" both come from the IMO incredibly naive views of the faith that take a dichotomous black and white view of the religion. As DZ Phillips would say, their use is parasitic upon such views.

Well, I might be playful and say that I don't like the connotation of naive here. <grin> But I'm much more willing to let people use their own language.

I think the point is that from your perspective my beliefs are naive and wrong and from my perspective your beliefs are wrong and mine are right. Our language unsurprisingly reflects our beliefs.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I make no assumptions in that piece.  It is based on standard Egyptology and upon actual, known Jewish history of late antiquity.  I cite all my sources.

The assumptions you make are the relationships that the BofA has to the ancient past, and how the BofA can be interpreted to illustrate that relationship.

I am not saying the relationships you see are invalid, nor am I saying that the BofA cannot be based on some source from a couple millennia ago. I'm saying that other ways of reading the BofA (and I would say much straight-forward readings) could just as easily be used to see relationships to 19th century views of Abraham found in contemporary commentaries and Masonic lore. Or, bring the two together, and say that Joseph translated an ancient texts using concepts and understandings contemporary to him.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the point is that from your perspective my beliefs are naive and wrong and from my perspective your beliefs are wrong and mine are right.

I would have suspected that you rejected the black and white thinking common among those in the pews with you, but maybe I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...