The Book Of Abraham: An End To The Apologetic War (Pt. 1)

[David Bokovoy]

Dear Friends,

For those interested, I have posted part one of a two part series on interpreting the Book of Abraham in light of the new changes to the introduction. I hope that my post will spark a healthy discussion on this important topic, but alas, I do not anticipate being able to engage in a lengthy online discussion.

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/

Warm wishes,

--DB

[cdowis]

The new introduction does not say what you think it says. I'll confess that I did not read your entire article but a few observations:

1. Were you able to explain why the facsimiles are still contained in the BOA? They clearly refer to those manuscripts, or is it just a coincidence.

2.

Please note; if the BofA literally appeared on the Egyptian scrolls Joseph possessed it would be a book written by a later Jewish author who falsely attributed the text to the biblical patriarch. This would place the BofA in the same category as later Jewish texts falsely attributed to biblical figures in the past, including the books of Enoch, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and even the Apocalypse of Abraham (a text probably written by a Jewish author around 70-150 AD).

I agree that the text was not written physically by the hand of Abraham, but the writer may have had such a text. This was a transmission of the text, even as we do not have the actual handwriting of any of the Biblical authors.

Now, the mnemonic theory suggests that this is a copy of the original BOA, but written in "code", as a memory device. In any case, the facsimiles tie the BOA to this manuscript.

I assume that this did not occur to you, but, as I said, I did not read the entire article because you boldly declared that the new introduction is a "game changer".

I have been down that road before.

Edited March 6, 2013 by cdowis

[David Bokovoy]

I assume that this did not occur to you, but, as I said, I did not read the entire article because you boldly declared that the new introduction is a "game changer". .

As I suggested, I do not have time to engage all of the commentary that will no doubt result from this post. If you're interested, I would invite you to read the post and then await part 2.

I do deal with this issue in the sense that this convoluted theory which requires accepting all of the highly problematic apologetic assumptions disputed by non-LDS Egyptologists would still make the author of the text a later Hellenized Jewish scribe. To anticipate part 2, I suspect most Latter-day Saints, myself included, would feel much more comfortable attributing the source to direct inspiration, since this legitimizes the text as scripture in a way that your theory does not. And make no mistake, the new introduction allows for this possibility.

Best,

--DB

[cdowis]

I agree that the revised introduction is interesting, but more significant is the fact that the facsimiles continue as an integral part of the BOA text. If you hope to separate the manuscript from the translation, the introduction gives you no comfort in that regard.

[ALarson]

Dear Friends,

For those interested, I have posted part one of a two part series on interpreting the Book of Abraham in light of the new changes to the introduction. I hope that my post will spark a healthy discussion on this important topic, but alas, I do not anticipate being able to engage in a lengthy online discussion.

http://www.withouten...getic-war-pt-1/

Warm wishes,

--DB

David, I read your entire post and enjoyed reading through it. Thanks for posting it.

I agree with cdavis in that the facsimiles are still problematic to explain and I hope you address that in your part 2.

I believe that even with the new introduction, the Book of Abraham will still be one of the issues members have when they start digging a bit deeper into its origins, etc. What causes even more problems for members is the fact that all the different theories presented by apologists only adds chaos and confusion. What they are left to conclude is that there are still not any good answers or theories that the church can stand behind. (I hope you know what I mean here.)

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Forgive the uninformed arrogance of a non-serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East, but I really don't see how anyone who has read, say, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri or One Eternal Round can maintain that there are no connections between the papyri and the Book of Abraham, or that Egyptology is irrelevant. What we're talking about here is how to determine textual priority from an original text that is probably gone forever; I don't think it's unreasonable to posit a common source which was later redacted in various ways in various locations, making the problem of pseudepigrapha pretty much superfluous. Santillana and Dechend showed long ago that the Creation Stories from around the world have distinct commonalities -- not vague psychological Jungian archetypal similarities, but actual genetic diffusion of minute convergences even at the level of vocabulary. That the underlying motifs are from a shared tradition doesn't preclude later repurposing. I'm bewildered why we still insist on dividing the ancient world into neat, discrete, easily-separated tribes and philosophies and religions, when it seems like it should be obvious that cultural systems were far more fluid than nationalistic scribes might have us believe.

(And Ye Gods, I gotta say, as someone who has exactly zero interest in which team manages to put a ball through a hoop in the "cultural hall", I wish every side of this debate would drop the breathlessly eager "game-changer" rhetoric.)

[William Schryver]

(And Ye Gods, I gotta say, as someone who has exactly zero interest in which team manages to put a ball through a hoop in the "cultural hall", I wish every side of this debate would drop the breathlessly eager "game-changer" rhetoric.)

From what I have seen, there is only one "side of this debate" that has used the "breathlessly eager 'game changer' rhetoric." I, for one, have never uttered the phrase "game changer" in relation to any thesis I have proposed about the origins of the Book of Abraham.

[Tacenda]

Who's to say JS wasn't just playing around with the idea that the papyri was the BoA? Using it as a vehicle more or less? Or as some on here have said he would say things that were untrue just to tease some of his friends, maybe it started out that way and it came into being where people were excited about his findings and then it snowballed.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

First, I think it is important to keep in mind that the change was to the Introduction to the Pearl of Great Price, and not to the introductions to the chapters of the Book of Abraham or the content of the Book of Abraham, including the facsimiles.

Second, Bro. Bokovoy said: "Look carefully at what this new assertion suggests (because I would submit, it changes everything!!). The Book of Abraham is identified as an inspired translation of the 'writings of Abraham,' not a translation of “Egyptian papyri” that contain the writings of Abraham."

While the change does explicitly identify the translation as "inspired" (whereas before it may only have been implied), I can't find the phrase "not a translation of the 'Egyptian papyri.'" Clearly, this is being read into the introduction, and between the lines.

At best, I would suggest that the change is an attempt to shift focus away from the areas of controversy and towards what really matters (i.e the translation is "inspired"), while still leaving the controversy open rather than closed. To me, the change is towards matters of high priority and away from the morass of debilitating and possibly faith-diminishing dogmatism from whatever side.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

"Forgive the uninformed arrogance of a non-serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East, but I really don't see how anyone who has read, say, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri or One Eternal Round can maintain that there are no connections between the papyri and the Book of Abraham, or that Egyptology is irrelevant."

Though typical, the condescension is really unfortunate. I have no interest in touting my own academic achievements, so a “serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East” seems sufficient. And yes, for anyone who has read the translations of the papyri published by such credible sources as the Maxwell Institute, there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham.

In terms of the apologetics arguments claiming otherwise, one might wish to consider the following study (paying special attention to the footnotes) to gain a perspective on why these apologetic claims have failed to convince non-LDS specialists in the field…

http://signaturebook...an-translation/

Edited March 6, 2013 by David Bokovoy

[wenglund]

And yes, for anyone who has read the translations of the papyri published by such credible sources as the Maxwell Institute, there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham.

While still somewhat problematic, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that: "according to current Egyptology, 'there is no connection with the [extant portions of the ] scrolls and the Book of Abraham'"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 6, 2013 by wenglund

[nealr]

For give me, but I have to ask, am I the only one who sees a strange incoherence in Bokovoy's argument?

1. Genesis 1-2:20 is a late, redacted creation narrative the merges two earlier narratives.

2. The BoA reflects this late, redacted creation narrative.

3. Therefore, if the BoA were on the papyri it would have to be a text that post-dates that narrative.

4. But the text also reflects earlier theological views about the Divine Council

5. And if this psuedepigraphic text is accepted as scripture, why not all others?

6. Also, most LDS would have a hard time accepting the view that a late psuedepigraphic text is scripture

7. Therefore, we should stop seeing the text this way.

Does anyone else see the problem here? This argument hinges on the view that Genesis is not actually written by Moses, and therefore, is psuedepigraphic. It is built on a view of Genesis that I think most LDS would have a hard time accepting. So why is it okay to accept such a view of Genesis, but not of the Book of Abraham? Does such a view make Genesis non-scriptural? If not, then why is this psuedepigraphic accepted as scripture and not all the others? The book of Genesis has some portions that were written later, and others earlier (this is the very premise of the Documentary Hypothesis, is it not?), so why then does the fact that parts of the Book of Abraham reflect some earlier theological views, while others later, make it impossible to have been on the papyri?

In short, it seems to me that Bokovoy is insisting that everything he accepts about the book of Genesis, is entirely unacceptable when it comes to the Book of Abraham. But why? As I said, such an argument seems painfully incoherent.

[nealr]

In terms of the apologetics arguments claiming otherwise, one might wish to consider the following study (paying special attention to the footnotes) to gain a perspective on why these apologetic claims have failed to convince non-LDS specialists in the field…

http://signaturebook...an-translation/

David, from what I know about you, you seem to hold up objectivity - or at least the attempt of objectivity - as the hallmark of good scholarship. But Robert Ritner has a manifest bias against Mormons (which has been noticed by many observers of his work), and it shows in his work on the Joseph Smith Papyri. Would this not be an indication, then, of bad scholarship?

No ill will intended, I'm just trying to understand how you can insist on standards of objectivity on the one hand, yet overlook obvious bias on the other.

Edit: Also, I'm curious to know if you think the same things about, say, Brant A. Gardner or Mark A. Wright's views about the Book of Mormon, since they have also "failed to convince non-LDS specialists" in their field. Do you also view their arguments as "highly problematic" and "embarrassing"? If not, why not? Their views are not gaining anymore respect in non-LDS circles, and are also looked down in some LDS circles, just like the Book of Abraham apologetics.

Edited March 6, 2013 by nealr

[Darren10]

Who's to say JS wasn't just playing around with the idea that the papyri was the BoA? Using it as a vehicle more or less? Or as some on here have said he would say things that were untrue just to tease some of his friends, maybe it started out that way and it came into being where people were excited about his findings and then it snowballed.

UmmmmmmmmmmKaayyyyyyyyyyyy.

[Darren10]

For give me, but I have to ask, am I the only one who sees a strange incoherence in Bokovoy's argument?

1. Genesis 1-2:20 is a late, redacted creation narrative the merges two earlier narratives.

2. The BoA reflects this late, redacted creation narrative.

3. Therefore, if the BoA were on the papyri it would have to be a text that post-dates that narrative.

4. But the text also reflects earlier theological views about the Divine Council

5. And if this psuedepigraphic text is accepted as scripture, why not all others?

6. Also, most LDS would have a hard time accepting the view that a late psuedepigraphic text is scripture

7. Therefore, we should stop seeing the text this way.

Does anyone else see the problem here? This argument hinges on the view that Genesis is not actually written by Moses, and therefore, is psuedepigraphic. It is built on a view of Genesis that I think most LDS would have a hard time accepting.

I don't. When I think of the temple instruction of the creation, I recall God speaking and Jehovah doing. Isn't that what David Bokovoy is saying of the two Genesis accounts?

So why is it okay to accept such a view of Genesis, but not of the Book of Abraham? Does such a view make Genesis non-scriptural? If not, then why is this psuedepigraphic accepted as scripture and not all the others?

Here I agree. I've no probem with the Book of Abraham being true scripture including being a true, literal account of Father Abraham even if it is psuedepigraphic. furthermore, even if copied by a Hellenistic Jew, why could his account not accurately reflect the original account which was perhaps written by Abraham's own hand. Then there's the truth that a living prophet of God translated the texts he had. Of course a living prophet could correct any mal-interpretations from the original writings.

[nealr]

I don't. When I think of the temple instruction of the creation, I recall God speaking and Jehovah doing. Isn't that what David Bokovoy is saying of the two Genesis accounts?

No, that is not what David Bokovoy is saying. He is saying that they are two different, contradictory accounts which were redacted into one centuries after the fact. And I'm sure plenty of folks here (myself included) would be okay with that. But I think most here would also be okay psuedepigraphic Book of Abraham. My point is that part of Bokovoy's argument is that most LDS would be uncomfortable with such a conclusion about the Book of Abraham, but to make his argument he depends on a view of the book of Genesis that most LDS would be uncomfortable with. After all, the average LDS in the pews probably believes that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Though typical, the condescension is really unfortunate. I have no interest in touting my own academic achievements, so a “serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East” seems sufficient.

To clarify, I was talking about me, not you. Tryin' to acknowledge the fact that I'm no scholar myself, just an interested observer navigating between various overheated theories on either side of the aisle. I apologize if I came off as condescending; I've appreciated your work in the past, for instance your reply to Heiser.

And yes, for anyone who has read the translations of the papyri published by such credible sources as the Maxwell Institute, there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham.

In terms of the apologetics arguments claiming otherwise, one might wish to consider the following study (paying special attention to the footnotes) to gain a perspective on why these apologetic claims have failed to convince non-LDS specialists in the field…

Thanks for the ref; Ritner's been on my reading list for quite some time, I just haven't managed to scrounge up the funds yet. I've read the translations from the Maxwell guys, as well as non-LDS translations. I think we might be misunderstanding each other about what we mean by "connections". But the point remains that this is similar to what happens when you bring up Mesoamerican scholars who've converted to Mormonism; they're regarded as unconvincing evidence, for some reason. I don't think we should base our truth claims on whether or not they're approved by others, and I think Nibley, Rhodes, Robert F. Smith, etc., have shown very interesting things going on between the Facsimiles, papyri, etc. But I suppose what's interesting and convincing is a subjective measure, so eh.

Edited March 6, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[juliann]

I believe that even with the new introduction, the Book of Abraham will still be one of the issues members have when they start digging a bit deeper into its origins, etc. What causes even more problems for members is the fact that all the different theories presented by apologists only adds chaos and confusion. What they are left to conclude is that there are still not any good answers or theories that the church can stand behind. (I hope you know what I mean here.)

I doubt you could find more than 1 out of 100 members who even know about one theory let alone different theories. Or cares. Some things take place academically or online....and stay there.

[BlueDreams]

I doubt you could find more than 1 out of 100 members who even know about one theory let alone different theories. Or cares. Some things take place academically or online....and stay there.

Total agreement. I've been online for ages and still don't have much of an idea about the theories about BoA. Mainly because I just don't care enough. This is definitely one of those issues that stay effective for a small amount of people.

With luv,

BD

[cinepro]

Who's to say JS wasn't just playing around with the idea that the papyri was the BoA? Using it as a vehicle more or less? Or as some on here have said he would say things that were untrue just to tease some of his friends, maybe it started out that way and it came into being where people were excited about his findings and then it snowballed.

Joseph Smith himself?

[wenglund]

I doubt you could find more than 1 out of 100 members who even know about one theory let alone different theories. Or cares. Some things take place academically or online....and stay there.

Even online there is very little caring, particularly the more in-depth the analysis. I have found that the fastest way for me to end up talking to myself is to start a KEP thread--though that may say more about me than the BoA topics. :0

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gtaggart]

"Forgive the uninformed arrogance of a non-serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East, but I really don't see how anyone who has read, say, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri or One Eternal Round can maintain that there are no connections between the papyri and the Book of Abraham, or that Egyptology is irrelevant."

Though typical, the condescension is really unfortunate. I have no interest in touting my own academic achievements, so a “serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East” seems sufficient. And yes, for anyone who has read the translations of the papyri published by such credible sources as the Maxwell Institute, there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham.

In terms of the apologetics arguments claiming otherwise, one might wish to consider the following study (paying special attention to the footnotes) to gain a perspective on why these apologetic claims have failed to convince non-LDS specialists in the field…

http://signaturebook...an-translation/

David,

I'm no Egyptologist and I don't know Ritner (and neither have I read the book you link to), but I do know Rhodes, and based only what I know about Rhodes, Ritner's charge against him is scurrilous, pure BS.

Edited March 7, 2013 by gtaggart

[David Bokovoy]

Part 2 is now available.

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/

[Senator]

Part 2 is now available.

http://www.withouten...getic-war-pt-2/

David,

Are you basically espousing the catalyst theory? If not, what distinctions are you making?

I've enjoyed your thoughts on this, BTW!

[juliann]

Now everyone is involved in lies, David? Why can't everyone just be allowed to disagree without it becoming an attack on their character? I have no dog in the BOA fight, I can't even relate what is at stake. But it seems to me that the inspiration theory (or whatever it is called) has been an "apologetic" position for some time, I know Barney has advocated it. The church did not come up with these changes out of the blue.

All I see is a ramping up of harsh rhetoric and invitation to a war.

[edit: The apologists I am familiar with seem to be using the term "catalyst" theory. And a significant number consider that the most viable option so I am again somewhat puzzled by the war metaphor when even the few apologists who get involved in this seem to have different theories, or even more likely, hold more than one out as a possibility.]

Edited March 7, 2013 by juliann