Dead Sea Scrolls And Other Non-Lds Texts. Support Or No?

[Maestrophil]

I have been reading a book called "Hidden Treasures of Knowledge" by Stephen Morgan.

In it, the author treats many subjects, and largely quotes from Nibley when addressing ancient documents - The JS Papyrus (Book of Breathings), Nag Hamadi texts, Dead Seas Scrolls, Apocrypha etc. I was first exposed to Nibley's works from cassettes passed around on my mission, and was blown away at the time by all of the similarities pointed out by Bro N between these ancient documents and LDS doctrine, especially in regards to the Temple.

Reading this book has re-piqued my interest, but as someone who has gone through a lot of faith challenges since being a young missionary, I now read things with a more skeptical eye. I realized I have never seen the original source translations of the passages cited, and know very little about the secular perspective as well as other faiths' views on these documents.

If taken at face value, then the doctrines and quotes form these ancient documents by Bros Nibley and Morgan, provide an UNCANNY amount of material that corroborates and justifies LDS theology and doctrine as being a restoration of things ancient.

So my questions are:

1. How do critics/non believers of the LDS church respond to the claims made by Nibley and others about the DSS etc? Have their assertions been refuted?

2. Are there books, especially LDS ones, that actually quote from direct translations done outside of LDS scholarship with footnotes/references (I especially am curious about the translation of the BOA papyri fragments that Nibley cites as containing an Egyptian "endowmnet"?

3. Do any other faiths consider these ancient documents to be a challenge to their view of religious history?

4. What are your personal experiences with ancient texts, and what recommendations for further study do you have?

It seems to me that if these references are solid, more of a big deal would be made about their existence. I await your excellent replies!!!

Maestrophil

EDITED to add - an apology for the title containing the word "scrools"

Edited February 11, 2013 by Maestrophil

[volgadon]

Good questions. I don't have time to answer, but there has been a lot said on these topics.

[Maestrophil]

Volgadon - I look forward to a time when you do have the time. :-)

[Ahab]

1. How do critics/non believers of the LDS church respond to the claims made by Nibley and others about the DSS etc?

Generally people today believe those people back then believed in what they regard as false doctrine, just as people do now. The fact that LDS and those people are in agreement on a lot of issues doesn't prove to them that what they taught back then was true, anymore than what we teach today proves that what we are teaching is true. Same ideas, but wrong both then and now, in their perspective.

Have their assertions been refuted?

Yes, we (LDS) have refuted their assertions.

2. Are there books, especially LDS ones, that actually quote from direct translations done outside of LDS scholarship with footnotes/references (I especially am curious about the translation of the BOA papyri fragments that Nibley cites as containing an Egyptian "endowmnet"?

Nibley usually cited from both perspectives while showing why in his perspective our perspective was more valid. I suggest Googling for a list of his books while looking for those about those issues.

3. Do any other faiths consider these ancient documents to be a challenge to their view of religious history?

Heh, no. Anytime anyone doesn't agree with them or their view they usually just figure the other guy is wrong, and not them.

4. What are your personal experiences with ancient texts, and what recommendations for further study do you have.

Hugh Nibley is my favorite author on issues like that, and I'm satisfied with what he helped to teach me with God's assistance.

I haven't had a big interest to study any more on those issues and if I did again I'd probably just get Hugh's books again and maybe dig down into the references he cites in his books, instead of just accepting his summary views with God's inspiration.

[rongo]

I don't think critics really have engaged the Mormon scholarly response. The response is typically ad hominem (can there any good thing come out of BYU? Oh, it's from a Mormon scholar, so it's complete nonsense. Etc.).

Nibley often quotes Early Church Fathers from a work with a three letter acronym that starts with "P." In looking into what this is, it's like a 50 volume set of everything there is from the ECF. The catch is that it's only in Greek; it hasn't been translated into anything else. There's supposed to be a similar set in Latin for the later Fathers as well.

I looked into this when arguing with someone over whether and to what extent Nibley's footnotes and quotations are accurate or not. As it turns out, one would have to know Greek, and the person one is arguing with would have to know Greek as well in order to settle the question.

But here's the interesting thing . . .

The set at BYU in the Lee Library is "well-loved" (it shows signs of heavy use), and Hugh Nibley's handwritten notes in pencil copiously adorn the margins, if you look it up and look through them. I'm told that sets of these at divinity schools (including specifically Brown University) look like they've never been opened or used ("mint condition"). So, even critics who cry foul about Nibley's treatment and translations don't appear to have even looked at the actual source material in question. *

I suspect that even more blockbusters could be unearthed if more Latter-day Saints paid the price to become proficient in these languages and combed these sources for parallels and bullseye hits. When critics cry foul, the challenge to falsify could be issued and emphasized.

*Kerry Shirts may have some anecdotes about this. At one point, about five or six years ago or so, he was studying German so he could check Nibley's sources for the 19th century Egyptology sources, and he was collecting photocopies of these sources. I know this because I loaned him a really good textbook. My experience when I have checked Nibley's footnotes is that he's dead on with translations and accurately reporting what was said.

Edited February 11, 2013 by rongo

[Maestrophil]

Thanks, Rongo. I would be interested in what Kerry's views are on these as well. I know he pops in here from time to time...

Do you have any other books you have read on the matters, Rongo? Perhaps DCP could point me to some sources too? Dan? :-)

[Maestrophil]

Generally people today believe those people back then believed in what they regard as false doctrine, just as people do now. The fact that LDS and those people are in agreement on a lot of issues doesn't prove to them that what they taught back then was true, anymore than what we teach today proves that what we are teaching is true. Same ideas, but wrong both then and now, in their perspective.

Yes, but how do they explain Joseph Smith coming up with ordinances and doctrines that were not even known by anyone until long after his death? Or has no one ever taken that on?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Maestrophil

[Ahab]

Yes, but how do they explain Joseph Smith coming up with ordinances and doctrines that were not even known by anyone until long after his death? Or has no one ever taken that on?

For some people, things like that can give someone the idea that God just may have inspired him to know about those things, which could then lead to them gaining a testimony from God to know that Yep, that's how Joseph knew about it, which just might then lead to them joining the Church, maybe after they also found out about a few other things God had told Joseph about.

For others, they could think Satan told him. Or Joseph somehow found a book about it. Or it was just a coincidence. Or they just might find some other reason to dismiss it.

[Nevo]

1. How do critics/non believers of the LDS church respond to the claims made by Nibley and others about the DSS etc? Have their assertions been refuted?

What specific claims about the DSS do you have in mind? I'm not aware of anything in the DSS that "corroborates and justifies LDS theology and doctrine as being a restoration of things ancient."

[blackstrap]

. Or Joseph somehow found a book about it. .

You have to remember that the library at Palmyra was HUGE and ranked with the top 10 of any libraries in the world!

[Kristian]

The OP raises a very interesting set of questions, ones that we're actively thinking about at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. A couple of years ago, for example we got together a group of scholars to give us an updated review of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was published as the second volume of Studies in the Bible and Antiquity: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/studies/?vol=2 . We are fortunate to have some great scrolls scholars at BYU, so this is a reliable little volume. Don Parry in particular has a solid and much deserved international reputation.

Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of reflection about our relationship to ancient religious texts. Latter-day Saints have been finding support for our revealed religion from ancient sources almost from the beginning. Hugh Nibley is just the most prodigious of those who have looked to ancient sources to track the historiography of our restoration doctrines. What we need in addition to this is some reflection on such questions as how we responsibly use ancient sources to defend our beliefs; how reliable are ancient religious texts as repositories of divine truths; what do ancient religious texts have to do with Mormon Studies; what unique perspectives do we Latter-day Saints have regarding ancient texts. You should see more of this type of thinking being published by the Maxwell Institute in the coming years.

[volgadon]

My experience when I have checked Nibley's footnotes is that he's dead on with translations and accurately reporting what was said.

I dunno, I think he frequently misread sources, which is not the same thing at all as fabrication. Brian Huaglid has a good article on an Arabic parallel, for instance.

[volgadon]

Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of reflection about our relationship to ancient religious texts.

Not the most thrilling thing in the world for me. I'd much rather directly engage text, context, and concepts.

Latter-day Saints have been finding support for our revealed religion from ancient sources almost from the beginning. Hugh Nibley is just the most prodigious of those who have looked to ancient sources to track the historiography of our restoration doctrines. What we need in addition to this is some reflection on such questions as how we responsibly use ancient sources to defend our beliefs; how reliable are ancient religious texts as repositories of divine truths; what do ancient religious texts have to do with Mormon Studies; what unique perspectives do we Latter-day Saints have regarding ancient texts. You should see more of this type of thinking being published by the Maxwell Institute in the coming years.

All worthy goals of course, but what seems lacking here, and perhaps I have misread, is in-depth engagement with the texts on their own terms. The reliability of ancient religious religious texts as "repositories of divine truths," that just seems to me a dangerous step backwards in terms of scholarship, as if much of the 20th century wasn't spent in overcoming such stifling bias.

[volgadon]

Here is a thread of mine on an Abrahamic tradition. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56904-abrahams-star-muslim-influence-jewish-tradition-and-the-boa/page__hl__nimrod We need a critical eye to look beneath the surface and uncover the wealth.

[Kristian]

Not the most thrilling thing in the world for me. I'd much rather directly engage text, context, and concepts.

All worthy goals of course, but what seems lacking here, and perhaps I have misread, is in-depth engagement with the texts on their own terms. The reliability of ancient religious religious texts as "repositories of divine truths," that just seems to me a dangerous step backwards in terms of scholarship, as if much of the 20th century wasn't spent in overcoming such stifling bias.

Thanks. Good point. I certainly agree that we need to engage with ancient texts on their own terms. That is the vital, first step in assessing their value to an LDS conversation. I work with Christian Syriac texts from Late Antiquity. I work with these texts only on their own terms. Occasionally I find something that might be of interest to an LDS audience, mostly extra-biblical traditions (e.g. OT Joseph as a Type of Christ: http://www.academia.edu/170296/Joseph_as_a_Type_of_Christ_in_the_Syriac_Literature). Nibley, IMHO, did not read texts in their own terms. He mined them for parallels or other canon fodder. The results are evocative, beautifully crafted narratives that seem to be about ancient texts but really are only about Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

The OP raises a very interesting set of questions, ones that we're actively thinking about at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. A couple of years ago, for example we got together a group of scholars to give us an updated review of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was published as the second volume of Studies in the Bible and Antiquity: http://maxwellinstit.../studies/?vol=2 . We are fortunate to have some great scrolls scholars at BYU, so this is a reliable little volume. Don Parry in particular has a solid and much deserved international reputation.

Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of reflection about our relationship to ancient religious texts. Latter-day Saints have been finding support for our revealed religion from ancient sources almost from the beginning. Hugh Nibley is just the most prodigious of those who have looked to ancient sources to track the historiography of our restoration doctrines. What we need in addition to this is some reflection on such questions as how we responsibly use ancient sources to defend our beliefs; how reliable are ancient religious texts as repositories of divine truths; what do ancient religious texts have to do with Mormon Studies; what unique perspectives do we Latter-day Saints have regarding ancient texts. You should see more of this type of thinking being published by the Maxwell Institute in the coming years.

Sounds very interesting, Dr. Heal, and I look forward to it. However, what would such an approach make of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, or how might the broad perspectives of the late Joseph Campbell be viewed in such light?

[volgadon]

Thanks. Good point. I certainly agree that we need to engage with ancient texts on their own terms. That is the vital, first step in assessing their value to an LDS conversation. I work with Christian Syriac texts from Late Antiquity. I work with these texts only on their own terms. Occasionally I find something that might be of interest to an LDS audience, mostly extra-biblical traditions (e.g. OT Joseph as a Type of Christ: http://www.academia....riac_Literature). Nibley, IMHO, did not read texts in their own terms. He mined them for parallels or other canon fodder. The results are evocative, beautifully crafted narratives that seem to be about ancient texts but really are only about Mormonism.

Thanks for the link to your article, I very much enjoy studies of typology, and Syriac is cool.

I've especially been meaning to increase my familiarity with Syriac writings as I'm heavily into rabbinics, and it provides a rival tradition that would hone my insights. Plus, like I said, it is plain cool.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a thread of mine on an Abrahamic tradition. http://www.mormondia...age__hl__nimrod We need a critical eye to look beneath the surface and uncover the wealth.

Amen.

Thanks for citing your previous discussion. Very nice.

I thought of Moses' birth, Pharaoh, and the three magi, as well.

[Kristian]

Sounds very interesting, Dr. Heal, and I look forward to it. However, what would such an approach make of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, or how might the broad perspectives of the late Joseph Campbell be viewed in such light?

Great question. Of course, the conversation is already underway with the texts produced by the Abrahamic and other ANE religions. I think we are increasingly open to accepting that their is light and truth to be found in a variety of non-Abrahamic religious systems. Normally, however, our interest is piqued by similarities. I would like to see a bit more of Krister Stendahl's notion of Holy Envy inform our readings of other religious texts. Let's allow that God has given answers to questions that we have not even thought to ask.

[Antoni]

It's certainly worth reading books of the Pseudepigrapha - I'm working my way through Enoch (which the Coptic church sees as cananonical) at present.

[Kristian]

It's certainly worth reading books of the Pseudepigrapha - I'm working my way through Enoch (which the Coptic church sees as cananonical) at present.

This is a great site for people interested in apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, especially as these texts relate to early Christianity. Lots of interesting papers and resources: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

[volgadon]

Nibley, IMHO, did not read texts in their own terms. He mined them for parallels or other canon fodder. The results are evocative, beautifully crafted narratives that seem to be about ancient texts but really are only about Mormonism.

Very true. My personal feeling is that we learn a lot more when we let the differences shine through as much as the parallels.

[volgadon]

Great question. Of course, the conversation is already underway with the texts produced by the Abrahamic and other ANE religions. I think we are increasingly open to accepting that their is light and truth to be found in a variety of non-Abrahamic religious systems. Normally, however, our interest is piqued by similarities. I would like to see a bit more of Krister Stendahl's notion of Holy Envy inform our readings of other religious texts.

I simply haven't been able to get into eastern religions all that much, compared to, say Abrahamic, Mandaean, Yazidi, and Slavic ones. Would be happy to read some good studies, though.

Let's allow that God has given answers to questions that we have not even thought to ask.

For sure.

[TomHagen]

The set at BYU in the Lee Library is "well-loved" (it shows signs of heavy use), and Hugh Nibley's handwritten notes in pencil copiously adorn the margins, if you look it up and look through them. I'm told that sets of these at divinity schools (including specifically Brown University) look like they've never been opened or used ("mint condition"). So, even critics who cry foul about Nibley's treatment and translations don't appear to have even looked at the actual source material in question.

New here. Sorry - I couldn't let this slide. I'm not a Mormon scholar, but I am a trial attorney, and I know a thing or two about evidence and the proper foundation for it. The highlighted statement above is a complete logical non-sequitur. Just because a book is in good condition doesn't mean that no one has ever looked at it. It doesn't mean that it hasn't been looked at a lot. It just means that it's in good condition. There are a number of reasons why BYU's copy might be in poorer condition than copies found in other libraries. Perhaps it's because professors at other institutions don't make a habit of dog-earing and writing in rare texts. However, even if we assume that BYU's copy has been looked at more than another copy doesn't mean that no one who knows what they're talking about has examined the other copy. It certainly doesn't mean that no critic has ever checked Nibley's sources. Your ascription that this must mean that Nibley was right and none of his critics even bothered to look only reveals that you wish it to mean what you wish it to mean.

[volgadon]

Perhaps it's because professors at other institutions don't make a habit of dog-earing and writing in rare texts.

It sounds like Rongo was speaking of Nibley's copy. Gershom Scholem, the godfather of Jewish mysticism studies and a very punctillious individual, wrote in the margins of his books. He even had his copy of the Zohar rebound with additional blank pages for jotting notes.

If you are who I think you are, welcome back.

Edited February 12, 2013 by volgadon