Answering Another Alleged Parallel

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course, you are also welcome to ignore the paper and continue making snide, uneducated remarks if that's what you prefer.

That being the only alternative to total submission, O invincible one?

Sorry. I'm just an aspiring scholar, not a demigod. You're wasting your time on the likes of me.

[Chris Smith]

I'm just an aspiring scholar, not a demigod.

You mean your one-liners aren't intended as great theophany experiences wherein you silence all opposition by the sheer awesome power of your sarcastic wit?

To see people fawn over them, you'd never know.

[Daniel Peterson]

You mean your one-liners aren't intended as great theophany experiences wherein you silence all opposition by the sheer awesome power of your sarcastic wit?

To see people fawn over them, you'd never know.

So you've decided to make this personal, friend?

Why? What is your motivation? What is it that you hate? And why? Why do you want to target me? I'm genuinely curious.

I don't think it's entirely coincidental that your insistence that the Book of Abraham's cosmology be interpreted through the lens of a nineteenth century document works to your benefit. That you've resorted to personal insults in response, however, is extraordinarily interesting. I wouldn't have predicted it, frankly, but will not soon forget it.

[Chris Smith]

So you've decided to make this personal, friend?

I understand that most of your sarcastic remarks are more tongue-in-cheek, humorous more than personal. And so when I respond in kind, you have to understand that I'm merely playing along.

I don't hate you. At all. Actually, I think your presence here has the potential to lighten the mood, as long as people understand the fact that your below-the-belt jabs are only half serious. It took me a long time to figure that out.

[John D the First]

I have resisted commenting on this because without access to the Greek text I cannot make an authoritative pronouncement. But it's worth pointing out that the English words "council" and "counsel" are not the same. "Counsel" can refer to advice or to a plan, whereas "Council" refers to a group of entities meeting together. What we have in Charlesworth's translation, despite Will Schryver's use of brackets to hide it, is the phrase "world-counsel". It is not, note, the phrase "world-council" or "divine council". Assuming that Charlesworth has spelled the word correctly-- and context suggests that he has-- this refers not to the divine council, but to a sort of "blueprint" for creation. In Platonic philosophy, there was a world of "forms": ideal, spiritual versions of material things. Philo, the first-century Hellenistic Jewish interpreter, interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 in light of the Platonic doctrine of "forms", so that Genesis 1 was understood as a spiritual creation (Platonic forms) and Genesis 2 was understood as a material creation. The Jewish doctrine of pre-existence appears to have grown out of a similar application of Platonic philosophy to Jewish ideas. So yes, like Philo, the Apocalypse of Abraham envisions a pre-creation creation and probably pre-mortal "spirits". And yes, this is similar to Joseph Smith's cosmology in the Books of Moses and Abraham, which used the same strategy to resolve the same contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

Thanks for this info. It's helpful to run this stuff by a knowledgeable critic. I noticed none of my fellow believers has brought this part of the A of A up. Maybe its because you have a point (if not I'd like to hear an opposing view). I'm just wondering how God can give a commandment to his "plan."

I do find compelling the argument that JS was not directly dependent on these texts. I believe, however, that some of the ideas reflected in Ethan Smith and maybe also in Swedenborg were floating around in JS's milieu, and that he imbibed them and used them in producing the Book of Mormon.

I agree. I think there is evidence of influence via Joseph's cultural environment, but not that Joseph Smith consiously used these writings. Likewise, I think similarities between Joseph's and other Abrahamic traditions are due to the ancient form of the story revealed to Joseph Smith being part of a similar cultural millieu from which these other traditions emerged.

In sum, here's my view: like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, Joseph Smith was an innovative interpreter of the Bible. By playing on obscure biblical texts, he developed a sophisticated hierarchy of beings, both spiritual and physical, and he rewrote the flow of salvation history. And like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, he gave his ideas added credibility by writing them into the biblical narratives and putting them in the mouths of figures like John, Moses, and Abraham. Joseph Smith noticed some of the same peculiarities in the biblical text that Jewish pseudepigraphers had picked up on, and both tried to explain them in similar ways. It is a credit to Joseph Smith that he so often reinvented interpretations that have historically been suggested by Jewish interpreters (even though in most of these cases he and they were both wrong).

Interesting explainations. Thanks for sharing. I think it is possible that people from two cultures, so separated in time and space would solve the problems the same way, I just don't think it's probable. I find the fact that you explain the data this way actually strengthening to my faith. I hope that's okay.

I think this is where amatures like me sign off. I look forward to reading more of what everyone has to say about this.

Best to you.

Jd1

[maklelan]

Yep. "Theophany" refers to a divine disclosure or "showing forth" (phainein) of God. Viewing Kolob from a distance and having someone tell you, "oh yeah, God's throne is somewhere near there" does not qualify as a throne theophany. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You've evidently completely ignored the scriptures I posted:

Abraham 3:11â??12 - Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made; And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

Are you really trying to insist that Abraham only squinted at God in the distance and said, "His throne is by that star way out there"? Are you serious?

Texts frequently include both hekhalot and the merkavah, and both genres are structurally quite similar. The Apocalypse of Abraham does have a merkavah, but you're right that the Book of Abraham does not. That is exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me.

I didn't make any point for you because my intention was never to assert that the Book of Abraham was a merkavah text. For the third time, I never said it was a merkavah text. If you refuse to recognize this I will bid you good day. It is an ascent text that contains a throne theophany.

When 1st century B.C.E. merkavah texts are the "template" you're claiming it follows, the fact that it's missing the key element actually does help my argument.

I never once said that the merkavah text was the template. Either show me where I did or apologize for misrepresenting my argument.

That "indisputably nineteenth-century text" was translated by Joseph Smith from the hieroglyphic characters accompanying the initial vignette of the Hor Book of Breathings. It was then used as a key to the interpretation of the symbols whence the Book of Abraham is derived. It was considered by Joseph Smith and his scribes to be authentic, legitimate, and inspired. This conclusion is based on historical and text-critical evidence that you will shortly have the privilege of reading about in a paper co-authored by myself and Don Bradley. It is currently in the revision stages and should be submitted by December. Of course, you are also welcome to ignore the paper and continue making uneducated remarks if that's what you prefer.

I eagerly anticipate the paper. If it contains such misrepresentations as those of which you are guilty in your correspondence with me I see no reason to be intimidated by it.

I have resisted commenting on this because without access to the Greek text I cannot make an authoritative pronouncement.

That's unfortunate, since the only extant texts of the Apocalypse of Abraham are Slavonic and not Greek.

But it's worth pointing out that the English words "council" and "counsel" are not the same. "Counsel" can refer to advice or to a plan, whereas "Council" refers to a group of entities meeting together. What we have in Charlesworth's translation, despite Will Schryver's use of brackets to hide it, is the phrase "world-counsel". It is not, note, the phrase "world-council" or "divine council". Assuming that Charlesworth has spelled the word correctly-- and context suggests that he has-- this refers not to the divine council, but to a sort of "blueprint" for creation.

Which was the entire point of the divine council.

In Platonic philosophy, there was a world of "forms": ideal, spiritual versions of material things. Philo, the first-century Hellenistic Jewish interpreter, interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 in light of the Platonic doctrine of "forms", so that Genesis 1 was understood as a spiritual creation (Platonic forms) and Genesis 2 was understood as a material creation. The Jewish doctrine of pre-existence appears to have grown out of a similar application of Platonic philosophy to Jewish ideas. So yes, like Philo, the Apocalypse of Abraham envisions a pre-creation creation and probably pre-mortal "spirits". And yes, this is similar to Joseph Smith's cosmology in the Books of Moses and Abraham, which used the same strategy to resolve the same contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

And what evidence do you supply to show that Joseph Smith studied Platonic cosmogony?

I do find compelling the argument that JS was not directly dependent on these texts. I believe, however, that some of the ideas reflected in Ethan Smith and maybe also in Swedenborg were floating around in JS's milieu, and that he imbibed them and used them in producing the Book of Mormon.

In sum, here's my view: like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, Joseph Smith was an innovative interpreter of the Bible. By playing on obscure biblical texts, he developed a sophisticated hierarchy of beings, both spiritual and physical, and he rewrote the flow of salvation history. And like the Jewish pseudepigraphers, he gave his ideas added credibility by writing them into the biblical narratives and putting them in the mouths of figures like John, Moses, and Abraham. Joseph Smith noticed some of the same peculiarities in the biblical text that Jewish pseudepigraphers had picked up on, and both tried to explain them in similar ways. It is a credit to Joseph Smith that he so often reinvented interpretations that have historically been suggested by Jewish interpreters (even though in most of these cases he and they were both wrong).

I think that the broad similarity of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham to the Apocalypse of Abraham only demonstrates how timeless is this project of biblical revision, and how similar are the efforts of two imaginative, conservative interpreters trying to interpret the same obscure or contradictory biblical texts. I don't think there is anything in the Book of Abraham that makes it more at home in either 2000 BC or the first-century A.D. than in the 19th-century.

So the Book of Abraham fits perfectly into an ancient (and at that point completely unknown to him) literary genre because of some obscure Jungian archetype found only in ancient Jewish mystics and Joseph Smith? Provocative theory, but quite difficult to swallow. What do you have in the way of evidence?

[Chris Smith]

Thanks for this info. It's helpful to run this stuff by a knowledgeable critic. I noticed none of my fellow believers has brought this part of the A of A up. Maybe its because you have a point (if not I'd like to hear an opposing view). I'm just wondering how God can give a commandment to his "plan."

These was an episode of Pinky and the Brain where they create "Chia Earth": a duplicate of the planet Earth created out of paper mache. They then convince all the humans to come over to Chia Earth to get free t-shirts, and are thus left with the real planet earth all to themselves. (In the end, the real planet earth gets destroyed and they vow to spend the night planning for the next day's attempt to overthrow Chia Earth... I love Pinky and the Brain.)

In any case, I tink the Chia Earth thing makes a good analogy for what Abraham is looking at in the Apocalypse of Abraham. He looks down below the sixth heaven and sees:

And I saw beneath the surface of my feet, even beneath the sixth heaven and what was therein, and then the earth and its fruits, and what moved upon it and its animate beings, and the power of its men, and the ungodliness of some of its souls and the righteous deeds of other souls, and I saw the lower regions and the perdition therein, the abyss and its torments. And I saw the sea and its islands, its monsters and its fishes, and Leviathan and his dominion, his camping-ground and his caves, and the world which lay above him, his movements and the destructions of the world on his account. And I saw there the streams and the rivers, and the rising of their waters, and their windings in their courses. And I saw there the Garden of Eden and its fruits, the source of the river that issues from it, the trees and their blossoms, and the ones who behaved righteously. And I saw therein their foods and their blessedness. And I saw there a great multitude, men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the vision, and half of them on the left side of the vision.

But God makes it pretty clear that this isn't the real earth. Rather, it's a blueprint, a form, a spiritual "paper mache" earth. It's a sandbox, where God figured out exactly what course he wanted history to take prior to actualizing it in the real, material earth. So he says of the vision, "This is my will for those who exist in the divine world-counsel...And so it came to pass that whatever I had determined to be, was already planned beforehand in this picture-vision before you, and it has stood before me before it was created, as you have seen."

Obviously this is a pretty determinist vision of history. God explains, "Those who are on the left side are all those, born before your day and afterwards, some destined for judgment and restoration, and others for vengeance and cutting off at the end of the age. But those on the right side of the picture, they are the. people who have been set apart for me, and whom I have ordained to be born of your line and called my people, even some of those who derive from Azazel." James Dunn considered election such an integral part of 1st-century Judaism that he made it one of "four pillars of second temple Judaism". Arguably this is comparable to the Book of Abraham, where God says of some of the spirits, "These I will make my rulers." But the people of the Apocalypse of Abraham's Chia Earth don't appear to be premortal spirits or members of the divine council, so any comparison will be somewhat strained. I also don't think Joseph Smith would have agreed with anything approaching determinism, however much he may have approved of fore-ordination.

So, to finally get around to your question, you asked how God can "command" Platonic forms. God says, "This is my will for those who exist in the divine world-counsel, for thus it seemed well-pleasing in my sight, and so afterwards I gave commandment to them through my word." I propose that what this means is that after God created his Chia Earth and decided he liked the way it had turned out, he "commanded" it into material being. This is sort of like building a puppet and then turning him into a real boy (except that in Earth's case the shadow Chia Earth is still out there somewhere). The Apocalypse of Abraham expresses the Jewish understanding that God created the world through his "word", or logos: this, too, is good Platonic doctrine.

Interesting explainations. Thanks for sharing. I think it is possible that people from two cultures, so separated in time and space would solve the problems the same way, I just don't think it's probable. I find the fact that you explain the data this way actually strengthening to my faith. I hope that's okay.

That's perfectly fine with me. I respect people's right to agree to disagree, and I appreciate the opportunity to disagree disagreeably. I do think that we have a responsibility to investigate our beliefs and to engage in free inquiry in search of truth, but if at the end of our inquiry (not that it should ever really end) someone decides that I'm wrong and Mormonism is right, more power to them! Thanks for listening and for the friendly discussion.

Best,

-Chris

[John D the First]

For those who know slovanic out there, here is what it says in the footnote I was referring to:

"Svet may mean either light or world. sovet...is the normal word for 'counsel'."

Here is the quote again:

And I said, Eternal One, Mighty One, what is the picture of creation? This is my will with regard to those who exist in the (divine) world counsel, and it seemed pleasing before my sight, and then afterwards I gave commandment to them through my word. And everything I had planned came into being.

So according to Chris's interpretation this is referring to people that exist in God's "plan" (that is, people who are part of the eidetic orders of Platonic cosmology), not people in the Divine council. I am wondering how we are to read God's command to them. What commandment is he talking about? In context, it seems he could talking about the command to bring into the existence God's plans for creation. What else would this be referring to? The command in the Garden of Eden? The command to sacrifice? The latter just doesn't make sense to me in this context.

Best,

Jd1

[John D the First]

So, to finally get around to your question, you asked how God can "command" Platonic forms. God says, "This is my will for those who exist in the divine world-counsel, for thus it seemed well-pleasing in my sight, and so afterwards I gave commandment to them through my word." I propose that what this means is that after God created his Chia Earth and decided he liked the way it had turned out, he "commanded" it into material being. This is sort of like building a puppet and then turning him into a real boy (except that in Earth's case the shadow Chia Earth is still out there somewhere). The Apocalypse of Abraham expresses the Jewish understanding that God created the world through his "word", or logos: this, too, is good Platonic doctrine.

I get it, so God commanded the ideal forms to basically turn into the earth as we know it. That makes sense. Does anyone have different reading of this? I would like to hear it.

Best,

Jd1

[Chris Smith]

You've evidently completely ignored the scriptures I posted:

Abraham 3:11â??12 - Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made; And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

Are you really trying to insist that Abraham only squinted at God in the distance and said, "His throne is by that star way out there"? Are you serious?

In an earlier post you mentioned the "angel of the Lord". I assumed you were interpreting "the Lord" here as an angelic guide like the ones who so often guide visionaries in these kinds of texts. So I am to understand, then, that when Abraham says the Lord talked with him "face to face", "put his hand upon mine eyes", and shows his all the stars, this is happening in the throne room? I don't see any real evidence of that, but I suppose it's plausible. Certainly if this is a throne theophany, it is atypical. It reminds me more of the Lord coming and visiting Moses "face to face" in the tabernacle than of an ascent to the throne room like what we find in Isaiah, Enoch, Ezekiel, or the Apocalypse of Abraham.

I didn't make any point for you because my intention was never to assert that the Book of Abraham was a merkavah text. For the third time, I never said it was a merkavah text. If you refuse to recognize this I will bid you good day. It is an ascent text that contains a throne theophany.

I never once said that the merkavah text was the template. Either show me where I did or apologize for misrepresenting my argument.

You wrote, "The Book of Abraham also qualifies as an ascent, and in his ascent the Lord describes the hierarchy of the celestial bodies to Abraham. You're diluting the correlations right out of the Book of Abraham. Keep in mind the Apocalypse comes from a much different time period with much different priorities. The characters and the general storyline remain the same, though. Often ancient authors would recycle the same general literary template and change the details to suit their agenda. The Book of Abraham fits perfectly into this genre and this literary idiosyncrasy." It sounds like you are saying that the Apocalypse (a merkavah text) and the Book of Abraham are cut from the same template/genre and contain the same basic elements. I apologize if I misunderstood.

I eagerly anticipate the paper. If it contains such misrepresentations as those of which you are guilty in your correspondence with me I see no reason to be intimidated by it.

I assure you it is entirely fabricated from thin air, and you'll have no trouble knocking it down.

And what evidence do you supply to show that Joseph Smith studied Platonic cosmogony?

By 1833, Joseph appears to have adopted some views that were not unlike the Quakers: the "light of Christ" and "ideal pre-existence" (Blake Ostler's term for the Platonic-form-like doctrine in D&C 88 and 93) are pretty Neo-platonic/Quakerish. I don't know if JS got these ideas from the Quakers, from some Neo-platonic minister (they were not unheard of) or by his own sheer deductive prowess in trying to reconcile Gen 1 and 2. While I don't rule out some form of borrowing, I tend to think that JS was smart enough to come up with this on his own.

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

What we have in Charlesworth's translation, despite Will Schryver's use of brackets to hide it, is the phrase "world-counsel". It is not, note, the phrase "world-council" or "divine council".

The translation I referenced is not Charlesworthâ??s, as is quite apparent from my citation. It was from Rubinkiewicz. And the bracketed â??the councilâ? derives from the translatorâ??s own notes, it is not my edit.

Rabbinic commentaries interpret the passage to which you refer above (regarding Abraham as an evangelist) consistent with the idea that Abraham was a missionary in Haran:

This is exactly the observation I was responding to in the OP.

So Jewish commentators consistently tell us that Abraham was involved in an evangelical ministry in Haran. Joseph Smithâ??s Abraham is also an evangelical minister. And yet you assure us that when the Biblical text speaks of â??the souls that they had gotten in Haran,â?

The Hebrew undoubtedly just means that he acquired a retinue of servants and laborers â?¦

???

And thus you dismiss the several Rabbinic commentaries with the wave of your hand?

No. Your original post attempted to suggest that the notion of Abraham being a preacher was a flawed interpretation. And yet it is precisely that interpretation that is shared by the several rabbinical commentaries I cite!

Who are we to believe? You â?¦ or the Rabbis?

Itâ??s a tough decision, but I trust that most of our readers will lean in the right direction.

And are we to believe that Ethan Smith and Swedenborg are the origins of Joseph Smithâ??s introduction into his Abraham text of the concepts of preexistent souls, and a spiritual creation?

Dan is right. If you start off with the inviolable premise that the Book of Abraham is a 19th century creation, then it becomes much easier to casually dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

And I was actually beginning to believe you were capable of objectivity in these matters â?¦

[David Bokovoy]

I disagree. I see no ascent in the BoA.

Abraham is told that he is a member of the divine court, one of the great governing stars of the heavenly council of deities presented in chapter three. Like all Near Eastern visionaries, Abraham witnesses a session of the heavenly council, including the image of God standing, and the call for volunteers via the question "whom shall I send?" (v. 27).

Much of the imagery reminds me of concepts found in the Babylonian magical series Maqlu, specifically tablet 1 lines 37-60, the unit that comprises the second, third, and fourth anti-witchcraft incantations.

Through a celestial ascent, the Mesopotamian speaker/ritual participant receives a cosmological vision through a journey to both the heavens and the netherworld in the guise of a star.

In Maqlu, the earthly participant must become a member of the company of the stars, the divine council, or retinue of the gods of heaven Anu and Antu. He even introduces himself with the messenger formula found in the Book of Abraham: â??Anu and Antu have sent me saying, â??Whom shall I send to Belet-seri?â? (1:52-53).

While Chris may be correct that the ascent presented in the Book of Abraham does not precisely mirror a Jewish merkavah experience, the Book of Abraham certainly contains a very ancient-like story of ascent.

We would do well to note the comments of Tzvi Abusch, the worldâ??s foremost expert on the Maqlu series, who states that the ancient imagery featured in the Mesopotamian collection â??of ascent to the world of the gods is also found in early Jewish apocalyptic and hekhalot literatures, where the participant ascends to heaven to join the divine world, and in early Pythagoreanism and in Hellenistic literature, where the soul at death returns to the heavens and is to be found among or as one of the stars. These traditions, it should be noted, are linked, in one way or another, to ancient Mesopotamia [the alleged original home of Abraham] and are rooted in an ecstatic, trance, or dream experience.â? Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Towards a History and Understanding of Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 276.

[Bill Hamblin]

Yep. "Theophany" refers to a divine disclosure or "showing forth" (phainein) of God. Viewing Kolob from a distance and having someone tell you, "oh yeah, God's throne is somewhere near there" does not qualify as a throne theophany. Sorry to burst your bubble.

No, throne theophany refers to seeing God seated on his throne. Distance of the vision (which is nowhere discussed in the BOA) has nothing to do with it. At any rate, the vision of the divine council in Abr 3:21-28, where God "dwells in the midst of them all" (21) obviously occurs around God, who is, presumably, at the very throne Abraham saw in 3:9. If not, where do you think God is meeting the pre-mortal intelligences? The Burger King? (The throne theophany is also strongly implied by parallels to Isa 6:8 in the "here I am, send me" language in 3:27.)

But, alas, no merkavah is mentioned.

[Bill Hamblin]

Texts frequently include both hekhalot and the merkavah, and both genres are structurally quite similar. The Apocalypse of Abraham does have a merkavah, but you're right that the Book of Abraham does not. That is exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me.

When 1st century B.C.E. merkavah texts are the "template" you're claiming it follows, the fact that it's missing the key element actually does help my argument.

Some texts have only the merkavah.

Some texts have only the hekhalot.

Some texts have both.

The different categories need to be kept clear and distinct. They are related, but not the same.

On the other hand, some texts that have a merkavah aren't part of Merkavah mysticism. While having a merkavah is a necessary prerequisite for Merkavah mysticism, the presence of a merkavah is not, in itself, sufficient for a text to be classified as merkavah mysticism. The best example, of course, is Ezekiel 1 and 10. There are other characteristics necessary for a text to be part of Merkavah mysticism.

As to the Apocalypse of Abraham (generally dated to the 1st century AD, not BC, by the way). It is generally not considered part of Merkavah mysticism, despite the presence of a merkavah (18:12-14). It lacks other crucial characteristics.

As Andrei Orlov, perhaps the leading scholar on the Slavonic pseudepigrapha, puts it:

It should be noted that 2Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob represent a unique group of texts that share a theophanic and mediatorial language that, in my view, is as different from the mainstream of early apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic writings as it is from later Hekhalot materials. This group of materials gives evidence of the lost practical and literary development that could very well represent an important transitional stage in early Jewish mystical testimonies, serving as a bridge from the matrix of early Jewish Apocalypticism, as it was manifested in early Enochic literature, to the matrix of early Jewish mysticism as it became manifest in rabbinic Merkabah and Hekhalot materials. The articles gathered in this volume intend to illustrate this transitional character of the Slavonic pseudepigraphic evidence by exploring theophanic and angelological imagery found in 2Enoch, the Ladder of Jacob, the Slavonic version of 3 Baruch and other pseudepigraphical texts preserved in Slavonic. It appears that the theophanic and angelological developments found in these documents occupy an intermediary stage between Second Temple Apocalypticism and Hekhalot mysticism and thus exhibit its own distinctive, one might say â??proto-Hekhalot,â?? mystical mold. (p 105)

Orlov, Andrei A. From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in Slavonic

Pseudepigrapha, Brill 2007

At any rate, it is not clear how this helps your theory. No one is claiming that the BOA is a merkavah text, or that it should exhibit parallels to the Apocalypse of Abraham in all its characteristics.

[Ron Beron]

Chris Smith writes,

In any case, there's a methodological problem here. Merkavah literature is typical of the last few centuries B.C., and is basically unknown before that. If the BoA is merkavah literature, then we're basically admitting that it's a late pesudepigraphon. Not only do we then have to reject the large majority of JS's own statements about the BoA and its own statements about itself, but we also have to drop the fanciful notion that the Ulisum/Olishem connection provides any evidence for the Book of Abraham.

I was led to believe it was a product of the sixth century AD with implications it was taught during the time of Ezekiel. Its stated objective was to mimic the ecstatic prophecies of ancient prophets. This does not mean that such ecstatic prophecies did not exist. The very name of the prophet, nabib meant specifically a ecstatic prognosticator whose visions approximated the "journey" of primitive shamans often culminating in a celestical journey, a death and rebirth, and theophonies. I think Mak had it dead on.

[Chris Smith]

First of all, let me say to Will that I apologize for the insinuation that his use of brackets was disingenuous. There's no excuse. For the record, Rubinkiewicz's translation (in volume 1 of Charlesworth's OT Pseudepigrapha collection) renders this "this is my will with regard to what is in the light". A footnote attached to "light" observes that this might, alternatively, mean either "council" or "counsel". In any case, I think the reading I provided to John D the first above is the most natural reading given the context, and I certainly see no hint of a divine council here.

So Jewish commentators consistently tell us that Abraham was involved in an evangelical ministry in Haran. Joseph Smithâ??s Abraham is also an evangelical minister. ...

And thus you dismiss the several Rabbinic commentaries with the wave of your hand?

As a side note, Brent Metcalfe has helpfully pointed out that the rabbis were not the only ones who misread this passage. 19th century commentators also did so:

"... some understand it of the proselytes made during their stay there; and no doubt they were as industrious in spreading and propagating the true religion ..." (John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament [London: Mathews & Leigh, Strand, 1810], s.v. Gen. 12:5.)

"... they took ... their servants, who were their property, and probably many of them proselytes to their religion." (Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible ... with Original Notes and Practical Observations

[Bill Hamblin]

Nobody is capable of objectivity, my friend. The only thing that separates me from some of our contemporaries is that I try harder than most.

Ha ha! That's very funny Chris!

Proper methodology insists that we examine the BOA and EAG separately before doing comparison.

Imagine two texts, X and Y. There is a debate about the relationship between X and Y. Some say X was written first and Y derived from it. Others say X and Y were written simultaneously. Still others say that X shares parallels with Z.

Now in order to create a neutral basis for testing the various hypotheses, it is important that each text is first analyzed and interpreted independently. If one scholar says that X must be interpreted based on Y, it already presumes an answer to a question that is in dispute. The hypotheses cannot be tested if one scholar insists that the only valid interpretation is one that presupposes his theory is correct.

I find it difficult to see how Chris' position is "trying harder than most" to be objective. It isn't. Quite the contrary.

[Chris Smith]

Ron and Bill,

I will make a few comments in response to your posts, but it appears that the argument is largely moot. I understood maklelan to be arguing that the Book of Abraham is a pseudepigraphal, Ptolemaic Jewish apocalypse in the same genre as the Apocalypse of Abraham. That evidently is not what he was arguing. I'm still not sure what exactly he was arguing (maybe that the BoA is Mesopotamian "ascent" literature that was dramatically revised and expanded by the author of the Apocalypse?), but whatever it was, it's not what I thought. So identifying genre of the Apocalypse is basically irrelevant as evidentiary support for the BoA.

Some texts have only the merkavah.

Some texts have only the hekhalot.

Some texts have both.

The different categories need to be kept clear and distinct. They are related, but not the same.

This is not inaccurate, but neither I think does it tell the whole story. Dr. Arbel makes the "Merkavah and Hekhalot literature" a single but heterogeneous corpus, loosely held together by its appropriation of two major themes: the first, corresponding to Hekhalot, is "heavenly ascents through the seven divine palaces," whereas the second is "meditations and interpretations of the chariot vision". He concludes that this corpus was the product of a long process of writing, starting possibly as early as the 2nd century. I see the ascent motifs in the Apocalypse of Abraham as something of a literary precursor to to the ascent motifs in merkavah-hekhalot corpus, which is why I indicated earlier in this thread that I was putting it only loosely in the "merkavah" genre and that "proto-merkavah" might be a better term. In any case, I am under no illusions that this text is representative of "merkavah mysticism" and will avoid imprecise of the term in the future in order to avoid misunderstanding and hostile FARMS reviews.

Best,

-Chris

Ha ha! That's very funny Chris!

Proper methodology insists that we examine the BOA and EAG separately before doing comparison.

Imagine two texts, X and Y. There is a debate about the relationship between X and Y. Some say X was written first and Y derived from it. Others say X and Y were written simultaneously. Still others say that X shares parallels with Z.

Now in order to create a neutral basis for testing the various hypotheses, it is important that each text is first analyzed and interpreted independently. If one scholar says that X must be interpreted based on Y, it already presumes an answer to a question that is in dispute. The hypotheses cannot be tested if one scholar insists that the only valid interpretation is one that presupposes his theory is correct.

I find it difficult to see how Chris' position is "trying harder than most" to be objective. It isn't. Quite the contrary.

I look forward to reading your summary dismissal of our text-critical conclusions when the paper goes to print.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

David,

Your thoughts are interesting, and I appreciate your sharing them. I am not a scholar of Mesopotamia, and so am not qualified to comment about how typical the BoA may or may not be of Mesopotamian ascent narratives. I do, however, know enough to appreciate the significance of the few parallels you pointed out (although certainly the "here I am" line would have been available to JS in Isaiah). I look forward to discussing this with you another day. In the meantime, I have a paper due on November 13th about an 18th-century Unitarian, and I've barely begun! Curse the distracting nature of these forums!

I wish you all well,

-Chris

[Daniel Peterson]

I look forward to reading your summary dismissal of our text-critical conclusions when the paper goes to print.

As I noted above, sincere and substantive disagreement with Chris Smith's opinions does not appear to be possible in his universe.

[Bill Hamblin]

As I noted above, sincere and substantive disagreement with Chris Smith's opinions does not appear to be possible in his universe.

But Dan, you see, he has "text-critical conclusions." All we have is, well, disingenuous apologetic diversions.

You see, even though he was demonstrably wrong about almost every single detail (date, language, provenance, genre, etc.) of merkavah texts and their possible association with the BOA, and still does not, in fact, understand the overall argument, he's still right about his "text-critical conclusions."

[William Schryver]

CS:

I look forward to reading your summary dismissal of our text-critical conclusions when the paper goes to print.

What is this? A hint of something? Are we to infer by this that you have officially joined "The Team"? Black hat and all? As a rookie, do you have to carry their bags from the luggage carousel to the taxis?

Anyway, that's quite exciting. You'll have to get Brent to tell you stories about hiding in his sister's basement during the whole Hofmann episode -- certain that it was his name next on the Danites' list. Of course, your name will now be placed on the Danites' list, too.

In any event, that's exciting news. Congratulations!

I just hope your contract is guaranteed.

[Alf O'Mega]

I look forward to reading your summary dismissal of our text-critical conclusions when the paper goes to print.

What is this? A hint of something? Are we to infer by this that you have officially joined "The Team"? Black hat and all? As a rookie, do you have to carry their bags from the luggage carousel to the taxis?

Anyway, that's quite exciting. You'll have to get Brent to tell you stories about hiding in his sister's basement during the whole Hofmann episode -- certain that it was his name next on the Danites' list. Of course, your name will now be placed on the Danites' list, too.

In any event, that's exciting news. Congratulations!

I just hope your contract is guaranteed.

His our referred to nothing more sinister than himself and Don Bradley:

That "indisputably nineteenth-century text" was translated by Joseph Smith from the hieroglyphic characters accompanying the initial vignette of the Hor Book of Breathings. It was then used as a key to the interpretation of the symbols whence the Book of Abraham is derived. It was considered by Joseph Smith and his scribes to be authentic, legitimate, and inspired. This conclusion is based on historical and text-critical evidence that you will shortly have the privilege of reading about in a paper co-authored by myself and Don Bradley. It is currently in the revision stages and should be submitted by December.

I'm hopeful that this article will light a fire under Brent Metcalfe's lazy butt to get his Book of the Book of Abraham (working title) before the public. (And if Brent needs some gimlet-eyed copy editing done for free, he should drop me a review copy early enough to make a difference.)

[Chris Smith]

CS:

What is this? A hint of something? Are we to infer by this that you have officially joined "The Team"? Black hat and all? As a rookie, do you have to carry their bags from the luggage carousel to the taxis?

No, it means that Don Bradley has been added as a second author due to his helpful contributions to the paper.

Anyway, that's quite exciting. You'll have to get Brent to tell you stories about hiding in his sister's basement during the whole Hofmann episode -- certain that it was his name next on the Danites' list.

I live in a basement right now too. I'm here because the rent is cheap, but shelter from the Danites is a perk, I assure you.

I just hope your contract is guaranteed.

I like to think of myself as a free agent. If the SCMC ever gets medical, I'll switch sides in a heartbeat.

As I noted above, sincere and substantive disagreement with Chris Smith's opinions does not appear to be possible in his universe.

Not before you've read them, it isn't.

Best,

-Chris

[Bill Hamblin]

Not before you've read them, it isn't.

But you, of course, you get to dismiss responses to your argument as "summary dismissal" before you've read them. Indeed, before they've even been written. See the problem?

On the other hand, I hope you don't expect us to agree with your conclusions before we've read them.