Book of Abraham Apologetics

[Olavarria]

The Magical Papyri reflect Greco-Roman influence in Egypt, and are not evidence of Abrahamic influence two millennium prior.

The Magical Papyri, the Hor Book of Breathings(including the vignettes) and the hydrocephali all come from the Greco-Roman period in Thebes. The GR period was an eclectic time in Egyptian religion as pagan Greek, Jewish and Christian elements were sometimes mixed freely with native Egyptian religious motifs.

The Magical Papyri I provided links 4, were created by an ancient Egyptian priest from the same period as the HBOB, and refer to the biblical Abraham; for the same priest in other documents, found in the same cache, refers to other Biblical figures as well.

What this shows is that:

1)an ancient Egyptian priest, from the same time period as the HBOB, associated the biblical Abraham with a lion couch scene.

2)That same Egyptian priest associated Abraham with the "pupil of the wedjat eye"(a god associated with hypocephali) and bibiou(figure 4 on the hypocephalus).

Otherwise, are you arguing that Abraham did not author the original Book of Abraham text?

As for the vignettes and the hypocephalus, they postdate Abraham, for sure. Therefore Abraham did not make them, or even use them.

Whether these vignettes were redacted at a later time for use in the BoA by an Egyptian priest, or Joseph Smith, I don't know. I only know that their place in the BoA is the product of redaction.

I believe the BoA is the word of God. Whether it is Joseph's translation of a missing papyrus(containing Abraham's actual book or an ancient pseudepigraphical work) or simply the product of divine revelation(containing Abraham's actual book), I don't know.

BUT BACK TO MY MAIN POINT

1)an ancient Egyptian priest, from the same time period as the JS Papyri, associated the biblical Abraham with a lion couch scene.

2)That same Egyptian priest associated Abraham with the "pupil of the wedjat eye"(a god associated with hypocephali) and bibiou(figure 4 on the hypocephalus).

[Chris Smith]

So, Pahoran... in order to get an affirmative answer from non-LDS scholars, you propose to omit all discussion of provenance, all discussion of the facsimiles, all discussion of distinctive names, all discussion of supernaturalism, and all discussion of the historicity of Abraham. Furthermore, you would ask not whether the text is historical or even ancient, but only whether it bears any similarity to "authentically ancient extrabiblical traditions about Abraham." Could the bar get any lower?

[Monster]

Okay.

The cats' chorus of naysayers have never read the Book of Abraham, don't actually know anything about it, so they don't have anything at all to say about it; they are fixated on the papyri, which are a peripheral issue at best.

I

Regards,

Pahoran

I think that is a false assumption. I Have never run into anyone who is critical of the BOA that has not read it. In fact I know some individuals that think it is some of the best scripture that the church has but they still do not believe it was translated from papyri, or that it is even from God.

[Monster]

Parables and more parables. We think because we speak in parables it lends credence to something. Parables are just a way of presenting your point of view. I can make up a parable for anything.

My question is why does the church not just come out and make a statement to the faithful as to what the BOA is and how it relates to the papyri. Use that prophet, seer and revelator ability and make a determination, and quit leaving it to the apologist to do mental gymnastics to explain it. And if someone claims it is not pertinent to our salvation I am going to say of course it is pertinent. Many good people have problems with this and even leave the church. They are not bad sinners but honest people wanting an honest answer, but they get nothing.

[nicolasconnault]

It's interesting that the GAs, when talking about the book of Abraham, rarely ever speak about its provenance, therefore not asking the membership of the Church to believe it came from Egyptian papyri. They simply quote from it when teaching simple doctrines.

Conversely, critical discussions about the BoA on this board almost never criticise the doctrine contained in the book, but are nearly exclusively focused on its authenticity. Does the authenticity matter if the content is true? Is authenticity the only litmus test of truth?

[Glenn101]

Parables and more parables. We think because we speak in parables it lends credence to something. Parables are just a way of presenting your point of view. I can make up a parable for anything.

My question is why does the church not just come out and make a statement to the faithful as to what the BOA is and how it relates to the papyri. Use that prophet, seer and revelator ability and make a determination, and quit leaving it to the apologist to do mental gymnastics to explain it. And if someone claims it is not pertinent to our salvation I am going to say of course it is pertinent. Many good people have problems with this and even leave the church. They are not bad sinners but honest people wanting an honest answer, but they get nothing.

How many times must the question be answered? Remeber the preface to the book of Abraham?

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235

[Monster]

How many times must the question be answered? Remeber the preface to the book of Abraham?

That tells the provenance of the Book of Abraham. It was canonized which to me is an official endorsement of the divine provenance of the book. Why should the General Authorities pray about something that has already been prayed about and accepted by the church as divinely inspired? Should we have to reassess the divinity of all of our canaon every generation or so?

Glenn

Because good people need some questions resolved. There are obviously issues that are left open. Is it to much to ask of the leaders for a little help sorting things out. What is the value in their leadership if they can not provide answers to specific questions. Anyone can spend the day offering general good advice like they are wont to do. I would like some real answers or at least opinion on relevant issues.

[nicolasconnault]

Because good people need some questions resolved. There are obviously issues that are left open. Is it to much to ask of the leaders for a little help sorting things out. What is the value in their leadership if they can not provide answers to specific questions. Anyone can spend the day offering general good advice like they are wont to do. I would like some real answers or at least opinion on relevant issues.

Is "providing answers to specific questions" a definition of leadership? Not in my dictionary!

[Glenn101]

Because good people need some questions resolved. There are obviously issues that are left open. Is it to much to ask of the leaders for a little help sorting things out. What is the value in their leadership if they can not provide answers to specific questions. Anyone can spend the day offering general good advice like they are wont to do. I would like some real answers or at least opinion on relevant issues.

However, anyone can get the same answer that the General Authorities can get via the prayer route. Good people are entitled to the answers via the Holy Ghost just as well as much as the General Authorities. They are not responsible the testimonies of the individual members of the church.

Glenn

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Why any scholar would want or be willing to consider the authenticity of an allegedly ancient document without knowing anything about its provenance is beyond me.

They would be agreeing in advance to participate in a "blind test." To make it more interesting, we might include one or two other disputed texts as well, such as excerpts from the Urantia book.

But you cannot even offer a "contents-only" test, since you feel the need to stipulate that the facsimiles would be removed as well as distinctive names like Kolob. So what kind of objective test would that be?

It would be a test that focuses upon the text itself. We are assuming that our scholars are not going to be on a desert island; what do you get if you google "Kolob?"

Let me speak for myself. I don't consider the idea of Abraham writing something not found in the Bible "blasphemous." So that's a straw-man criticism as far as I am concerned. Obviously, I believe that Abraham was a real person, and I have no reason to assume he was illiterate. Nor do I consider the idea of a prophet translating an ancient scripture impossible. I don't approach the Book of Abraham with such a priori objections.

Umm, Rob? You're telling us that you're a conservative American Protestant who doesn't a priori reject the notion of a modern prophet producing new scripture by revelation, thus adding to the inerrant and all-sufficient Bible?

Really?

Now, I am familiar with some of the literature that LDS scholars have been producing arguing for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham on the basis of alleged internal evidence that it contains extrabiblical traditions about Abraham or information about ancient Egyptian religion of which Joseph Smith could not have had any natural knowledge. I don't find this argument persuasive for several reasons. It is going to take me considerable time to work up a thorough analysis and response to this rather large and technical body of LDS apologetic literature on the Book of Abraham, but that is a project I have already started. I will also state for the record that I am willing to consider and reconsider the evidence as I work through the arguments in detail. As best I can, I will try to keep an open mind. But what I have seen so far does not impress me as good evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. That's where I am on the subject at the present time.

I have every confidence that your researches will unfailingly conclude that the IRR party line is correct in all details.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

So, Pahoran... in order to get an affirmative answer from non-LDS scholars, you propose to omit all discussion of provenance, all discussion of the facsimiles, all discussion of distinctive names, all discussion of supernaturalism, and all discussion of the historicity of Abraham.

You've got it; we would eliminate anything that might prejudice the discussion.

I understand your alarm.

Furthermore, you would ask not whether the text is historical or even ancient,

Questions that cannot be resolved without examining the provenance.

but only whether it bears any similarity to "authentically ancient extrabiblical traditions about Abraham." Could the bar get any lower?

As I said: I understand your alarm.

Regards,

Pahoran

[nicolasconnault]

Umm, Rob? You're telling us that you're a conservative American Protestant who doesn't a priori reject the notion of a modern prophet producing new scripture by revelation, thus adding to the inerrant and all-sufficient Bible?

Really?

I told you he wasn't your "common run of the mill evangelical"

(no offence meant, Rob, just being cheeky!)

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

It would be a test that focuses upon the text itself. We are assuming that our scholars are not going to be on a desert island; what do you get if you google "Kolob?"

And what do you suppose you get if you Google "Book of Abraham"? A text-based text must include the whole text, embarrassing parts and all.

You wrote:

Umm, Rob? You're telling us that you're a conservative American Protestant who doesn't a priori reject the notion of a modern prophet producing new scripture by revelation, thus adding to the inerrant and all-sufficient Bible? Really?

First of all, inerrancy is irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is nothing theologically objectionable about adding new scripture to an existing body of inerrant scripture, as long as the new scripture has that same quality of inerrancy. Inerrancy should not be confused with closure of the canon, as you confuse them here and as Mormons routinely confuse them.

Second, I do regard the canon of Scripture as de facto closed, but that is different from claiming that it is de jure closed. To assert that the canon is de jure closed would mean that it is not possible for any new revelations to be added to the canon of Scripture. This is not my position. To assert that the canon is de facto closed means that as a matter of fact the canon of Scripture has had nothing added to it for a very long time (over 1900 years) and that for all of that time the church has not had leaders genuinely authorized to deliver revelations comparable to the canonical revelations of the Bible (i.e., prophets or apostles), and therefore the burden of proof is on anyone claiming the authority to add to the canon. Of course part of what I am asserting here is that those who have claimed to be prophets or apostles in the past 1900 years have been no such thing. But my theological stance does not involve the a priori assumption that it is impossible for God to raise up a prophet in modern times. The proper approach in my view is to test all such claims for coherence with the revelations already given and validated to us in the existing canon of Scripture (see, e.g., 1 John 4:1-6) as well as to look for authenticating evidence that such individuals really are prophets of God. So far, I haven't seen anyone who passes these tests.

Third, the issue is not merely the closure of the canon. As an evangelical, I do hold to the reliability of the Genesis account of creation and the patriarchs, quoted by Jesus and the apostles without reservation, so this creates a theological presumption that an alleged scripture lost for four thousand years and overturning the teachings of the extant book of Genesis on a number of significant points, translated by a supposed modern prophet, for which no original-language text is extant bearing any relationship to the alleged scripture, is a priori suspect! Yes--I plead guilty on this point!

You wrote:

I have every confidence that your researches will unfailingly conclude that the IRR party line is correct in all details.

I don't have that confidence. In fact, my expectation is that IRR's material on the subject, most of which is twenty years old, will need substantial correction and revision. I can also tell you that the other members of IRR's staff are fully supportive of me taking a critical look at IRR's past publications on this and any other subject. Nothing is off limits. I do my own research, make my own analysis of the issues, and come to my own conclusions. I am not expected or required to validate past arguments or conclusions. For example, if I were to reach the conclusion that the papyrus from which Joseph Smith supposedly translated the BOA is not among the extant papyri, I would say so. The only thing I am concerned about here is understanding the issues as fully and accurately as possible with the goal of getting to the truth.

[Rob Bowman]

Nicolas,

Absolutely no offense taken!

I told you he wasn't your "common run of the mill evangelical"

(no offence meant, Rob, just being cheeky!)

[Chris Smith]

You've got it; we would eliminate anything that might prejudice the discussion.

So, for scholars to consider any aspect of the book save its similarity to ancient legends would inevitably "prejudice" them against it. This seems a startlingly frank admission, coming from a bastion of orthodoxy such as yourself.

[SkepticTheist]

Second, I do regard the canon of Scripture as de facto closed, but that is different from claiming that it is de jure closed. To assert that the canon is de jure closed would mean that it is not possible for any new revelations to be added to the canon of Scripture. This is not my position. To assert that the canon is de facto closed means that as a matter of fact the canon of Scripture has had nothing added to it for a very long time (over 1900 years) and that for all of that time the church has not had leaders genuinely authorized to deliver revelations comparable to the canonical revelations of the Bible (i.e., prophets or apostles), and therefore the burden of proof is on anyone claiming the authority to add to the canon. Of course part of what I am asserting here is that those who have claimed to be prophets or apostles in the past 1900 years have been no such thing. But my theological stance does not involve the a priori assumption that it is impossible for God to raise up a prophet in modern times. The proper approach in my view is to test all such claims for coherence with the revelations already given and validated to us in the existing canon of Scripture (see, e.g., 1 John 4:1-6) as well as to look for authenticating evidence that such individuals really are prophets of God. So far, I haven't seen anyone who passes these tests.

I'm happy that you at least make the distinctions of de jure closure versus the idea of de facto closure of the canon. This shows an uncommon open-mindedness among those like you. And I'm equally happy that you at least accept the possibility of modern prophets. On the other hand, the fact remains that for a prophet to be a prophet for anyone of your ideology, he would have to conform to your ideology. Now that prophets are back, it is not surprising that people not of the ideology that those prophets have established do not accept them. The Pharisees did not accept the ideologies put forth by Jesus or John the Baptist, and now the same is so in our day with those outside of Mormonism. They focus on the fallibility of the persons, which is an ad homeneim, versus the fundamental core of the message, shooting the messenger, just as Christ was killed, and just as John was killed.

Ed Goble

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

Of course part of what I am asserting here is that those who have claimed to be prophets or apostles in the past 1900 years have been no such thing. But my theological stance does not involve the a priori assumption that it is impossible for God to raise up a prophet in modern times. The proper approach in my view is to test all such claims for coherence with the revelations already given and validated to us in the existing canon of Scripture (see, e.g., 1 John 4:1-6) as well as to look for authenticating evidence that such individuals really are prophets of God. So far, I haven't seen anyone who passes these tests.

SNIP

I see the problem of identifying a true prophet is a bit more involved. I located 28 Biblical tests, all supported by true and false indicators. (My paper has been up at FAIR for a while now.) I noticed that the Bible also contains several important recommendations for observers, things they ought to do to see truth, and warnings against contrary actions and attitudes. And I studied around 70 arguments given by Biblical peoples to justify rejecting true prophets. It turns out that there is an organic relationship between these elements: subject and criteria, observer actions and attitudes, and mistakes to avoid. Those making the mistakes also fail to use the proper criteria, or use them incorrectly, a tendency helped by their reliance on those tests that in practice are easiest to manipulate to the exclusion of the others. And in failing to use the relevant criteria properly, they also demonstrate that they are not following the recommendations for seeing truth. That is, their failures in actions and attitude directly affect the specific arguments they frame to reject Jesus or Paul or Jeremiah. In looking at this whole organic arrangement in the Bible, I came to understand the full implications of what Jesus meant when he said "Verify, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me: and he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth him that sent me." (John, 13:20)

In my view, it only takes a handful of the 28 Biblical tests to narrow the field down to just Joseph Smith. Against the context provided by all of them, he looks very good. Worth a closer look.

Contexualization is important.

Professor John McDade observes that:

"There is then a radical dependence between the reconstructed Jesus and the reconstructed context/model: how the context and social model are understood determines how Jesus is understood.

[Pahoran]

So, for scholars to consider any aspect of the book save its similarity to ancient legends would inevitably "prejudice" them against it.

That's not what I said. However, once the scholars in question know they are dealing with the Book of Abraham, and that it is believed by Mormons (ugh!) to be scripture, we no longer have a blind test; and we can expect their prejudices -- so carefully cultivated over recent years -- to determine the outcome.

You see, Chris, it is in the nature of blind tests that the testers don't get to see the label on the juice bottle.

This seems a startlingly frank admission, coming from a bastion of orthodoxy such as yourself.

Simply an admission that scholars are human too.

If you think that is earth-shattering, then you have altogether too exalted a view of scholarship.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Ed,

You wrote:

I'm happy that you at least make the distinctions of de jure closure versus the idea of de facto closure of the canon. This shows an uncommon open-mindedness among those like you. And I'm equally happy that you at least accept the possibility of modern prophets.

I'm by no means an isolated example of someone holding the views I expressed.

You wrote:

On the other hand, the fact remains that for a prophet to be a prophet for anyone of your ideology, he would have to conform to your ideology. Now that prophets are back, it is not surprising that people not of the ideology that those prophets have established do not accept them.

How would this differ from your own perspective? If someone claiming to be a prophet announces that the LDS Church has become apostate, or teaches that Heavenly Mother is to be worshiped, wouldn't you reject such a prophet?

You wrote:

The Pharisees did not accept the ideologies put forth by Jesus or John the Baptist, and now the same is so in our day with those outside of Mormonism. They focus on the fallibility of the persons, which is an ad homeneim, versus the fundamental core of the message, shooting the messenger, just as Christ was killed, and just as John was killed.

With all due respect, Ed, I know something about Jesus and John the Baptist, and the LDS prophets are not in the same league as either of them. I'm rather tired of Mormons comparing me to the Pharisees merely because I reject Mormonism. The Pharisees, by the way, didn't reject John--it was Herod Antipas who had John killed. (The Pharisees didn't have the gumption to take a stand on John's status as a prophet.) And the Pharisees rejected Jesus, not a particular strain of religion claiming to represent Jesus. So the comparison simply is not apt.

Furthermore, my arguments against Mormonism are not ad hominem. I don't argue that Mormonism is false because Joseph Smith was fallible. That would be a terrible argument, but I don't make any such argument. My problem is with the core claims of the LDS religion, not with peccadilloes in the life of its prophets.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

I was already aware of your list of 28 biblical tests of a prophet. I do intend to address your argument in that paper at some point, but there's only so much time in the day. Now that you have thrown it in my face, I suppose I will have to move it up in the queue.

[SkepticTheist]

Ed,

You wrote:

I'm by no means an isolated example of someone holding the views I expressed.

You wrote:

How would this differ from your own perspective? If someone claiming to be a prophet announces that the LDS Church has become apostate, or teaches that Heavenly Mother is to be worshiped, wouldn't you reject such a prophet?

You wrote:

With all due respect, Ed, I know something about Jesus and John the Baptist, and the LDS prophets are not in the same league as either of them. I'm rather tired of Mormons comparing me to the Pharisees merely because I reject Mormonism. The Pharisees, by the way, didn't reject John--it was Herod Antipas who had John killed. (The Pharisees didn't have the gumption to take a stand on John's status as a prophet.) And the Pharisees rejected Jesus, not a particular strain of religion claiming to represent Jesus. So the comparison simply is not apt.

Furthermore, my arguments against Mormonism are not ad hominem. I don't argue that Mormonism is false because Joseph Smith was fallible. That would be a terrible argument, but I don't make any such argument. My problem is with the core claims of the LDS religion, not with peccadilloes in the life of its prophets.

If your issues were about the core claims of Mormonism, it would be confined to core claims, not claims on the periphery, such as Book of Abraham historicity or even BOM historicity. There is nothing inconsistent about the core teachings of Mormonism that do not have a logical basis, and that emerge out of a logical, rational understanding of scriptures that exist in the Bible, even if you do not grant revelation to be the source. Just because you don't agree with those doesn't mean that the scriptures cannot be read to mean that way. And even if you have risen above your "brethren" in your movement in not tearing at the "peccadilloes" of our prophets, the others in your movement have not ceased to do so.

Congratulations to you to the degree that you have risen above certain fallacies that your fellows have not.

Ed Goble

[Rob Bowman]

Ed,

You wrote:

If your issues were about the core claims of Mormonism, it would be confined to core claims, not claims on the periphery, such as Book of Abraham historicity or even BOM historicity.

How anyone can plausibly claim that the issues of the historicity of the BOA and especially of the BOM are "on the periphery" of the core claims of Mormonism is beyond me. I am going to assume that the LDS Church leaders who have asserted emphatically the importance of the historicity of the ancient scriptures that Joseph Smith delivered to the world are representative for Mormons.

[SkepticTheist]

Ed,

You wrote:

How anyone can plausibly claim that the issues of the historicity of the BOA and especially of the BOM are "on the periphery" of the core claims of Mormonism is beyond me. I am going to assume that the LDS Church leaders who have asserted emphatically the importance of the historicity of the ancient scriptures that Joseph Smith delivered to the world are representative for Mormons.

Because there are a great many Mormons who believe in core doctrines who do not find historicity to be core to their faith. I am not one of those, because I believe in historicity. But it is not at the core of my faith in Mormonism. Things like a big 3 in 1 blob impossiblity that are rejected by rationalists such as Dawkins are at the core of my faith. I will not grant that a God is God that is not rational, that did not arise out of a rational process of development. In other words, just as Dawkins, I don't believe in supernatural Gods. So if I wasn't a Mormon, I'd be an atheist. For me, it is the one or the other, not some other shade of Christianity or Buddhism or some nonsense with supernatural claims. Thus, the handle "SkepticTheist" that I use, as you can see. Because I'm a skeptic of your claims not on theological grounds necessarily, but on rationalist grounds.

Ed Goble

[Vance]

Things like a big 3 in 1 blob impossiblity that are rejected by rationalists such as Dawkins are at the core of my faith.

That reminds me of a conversation that didn't seem to get finished.

[SkepticTheist]

That reminds me of a conversation that didn't seem to get finished.

http://www.mormondia...__p__1208959997

I guess I don't know what you are trying to get at. Please elaborate. If this is about something that I said that is somehow against some policy, please elaborate so I can correct it and not say it again, because it seems like you got cut off at the end of this thread you point out.

Ed