Hamblin-Bokovoy Boa Discussion: The Formation Of Scripture

[J Green]

An interesting discussion about the scriptural status of the Book of Abraham broke out a few days ago in the comment section of Bill Hamblin's blog, Mormon Scripture Explorations. Part of the talk centers around what it means if the BOA narrative reflects independent J and E versions of the biblical narratives and whether this leads to the concept of the BOA being pseudepigraphac, inspired or otherwise. (See also the related discussion Source Criticism in the Bible.) At one point, David brought up Karel van der Toorn's important work, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).

 

I'd like to take a step back from that debate and first frame the context for formation of the BOA in light of Van der Toorn's thesis. Essentially, he says that most of the pre-exilic prophetic books existed first as simple oracle collections (prophecies, throne theophanies, call narratives, etc.) without the broader narrative framework attached. These oracles would have been collected by scribes and then later fleshed out as books with full narratives starting in the late pre-exilic era and continuing into the era of return. Thus the initial pre-exilic messages were verbal oracles that were not meant to be uniform written texts. He uses the book of Jeremiah as an example of this textual evolution. He contrasts this approach with what he sees as later texts (e.g., Deutero-Isaiah) that were intended to be written compositions and were more uniform. I provide a much lengthier summary of his model when I discussed the possibility that the first two books of Nephi existed first as an oracle collection that were then later fleshed out into narratives by Nephi himself (Scribalization of Prophecy and the BoM).

From a believing LDS standpoint, I've always been curious about how we should look at the biblical record in light of source criticism. For example, why does the current version of the flood narrative contain different strands that trace back to Sumerian flood stories? Hittite covenant treaties, Babylonian tower episodes, adoption of Storm God motifs and council settings, etc. Almost everything bears the imprint of sources that show a dependence on Babylonian records. Don't we as LDS believe that there were better records than Babylonian ones that trace to even before the flood? If we do, then why weren't they used? Were different records used originally and then later editors redacted the text to reflect Babylonian sources during the exile? If so, why?

 

On the other hand, if Van der Toorn is correct, perhaps the original records that existed were simply the oracle collections without the larger narrative framework that so often bears the imprints of disparate sources. If true, would this meet with our expectations of how records were maintained and passed down (whether orally or in written form)? Also, If true, would it explain why other sources may have been used when these oracles were transformed by later scribes into narrative frameworks?

 

I ask the same question of the Book of Abraham. Before we argue whether or not this book really existed in a physical format or was solely the product of revelation, I would ask the question of how it would fit Van der Toorn's model. Does it more accurately fit the Jeremiah model that is enlarged from an earlier collection of call narratives, visitations from God, and other experiences or does it more closely reflect a more uniform text that was intended to be a written text at its inception?

 

For me, it's quite clearly the former. Chapter 1 involves a rescue and visitation from God, Chapter 2 another visitation along with a call narrative. Chapter 3 is a disparate vision. But also, there is not smooth flow from 1 to 5 as if this were a composition meant to be a uniform written text at its inception. And if it fits this model, the original BOA would have been these collection of visitations, call narratives, and visions that would then have been fleshed out into a full narrative by scribes at a time around or just after the exile.

 

So if this is true, and the BOA more closely resembles a product like Jeremiah and the other pre-exilic and late pre-exilic prophetic texts --- where the original prophetic collection of oracles is enlarged into a narrative much later by a series of scribes --- then wouldn't we expect to see independent J and E influence in the Book of Abraham as the narrative is fashioned around the original oracle collection by later scribes around or just after the exile?

 

In other words, I'm not sure how much J and E influence in the Book of Abraham narrative tells us that we don't already know. And I'm not sure that it necessarily tells us that the entire book is pseudepigraphic. Where do the prophecies, visitations and call narratives in this text come from? If we really want to test Van der Toorn's hypothesis, I suggest we focus on these aspects of the BOA as opposed to the narrative framework that may bear the reflection of later redaction dependent on later biblical sources.

 

Thoughts?

[Glenn101]

I have no expertise in source cirticism at all. As a believing Latter-Day Saint, I think that believers need to treat the scriptures and source criticism with caution.

 

Glenn

[foster]

Does anyone have the full quote and context that Bill Hamblin rails against? Some criticism are products of our own biased, and inadvertently we create an offense when none was there. Concerning Maxwell Institute, some people are very biased.

[J Green]

I have no expertise in source cirticism at all. As a believing Latter-Day Saint, I think that believers need to treat the scriptures and source criticism with caution.

 

Glenn

 

Thanks, Glenn.

 

I can understand caution. But at the same time, as a believing Latter-day Saint, I want good men and women from the Church who are trained to participate in the discussion and see where there are (or are not) convergences with what we believe. In the process, I always try to distinguish between what I know to be true from what I have always simply assumed to be true. Does that make sense?

 

Cheers

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, I'm supposed to be upset that the MI publishes a disclaimer that it has "no official position" on the Book of Abrahm, but it's okay if the FAIR Wiki tells me that the Church itself has "no official position" on topics such as the scope of Noah's flood (in spite of this), or the location of the Hill Cumorah (in spite of this), or whether or not animals had physical death outside the Garden of Eden before the Fall (in spite of this)?

Edited August 27, 2013 by cinepro

[J Green]

Does anyone have the full quote and context that Bill Hamblin rails against? Some criticism are products of our own biased, and inadvertently we create an offense when none was there. Concerning Maxwell Institute, some people are very biased.

 

Foster,

 

I'd prefer that this thread not be a continuation for any friction (perceived or otherwise) or other elements of that discussion other than simply asking us to take a step or two back from the point of that discussion and ask ourselves what our expectations would be for the formation of a Book of Abraham.

 

Regards

[J Green]

Just so I'm clear, I'm supposed to be upset that the MI publishes a disclaimer that it has "no official position" on the Book of Abrahm, but it's okay if the FAIR Wiki tells me that the Church itself has "no official position" on topics such as the scope of Noah's flood (in spite of this), or the location of the Hill Cumorah (in spite of this)?

 

And I'd prefer it if you could ask that question on Bill's blog instead of here. As I said, this is not intended to be a continuation of friction on points like this. I'm simply interested in asking Latter-day Saints about our assumptions on how scripture is formed in light of Van der Toorn's thesis.

 

Cheers

[Deborah]

I thought that the BOA wasn't actually written by Abraham but was written by scribes who copied the words of Abraham at a much  later date. How and what Joseph translated or whether it was pure revelation inspired by the papyri he had is a separated issue.

[J Green]

Let me try to phrase the questions more directly. As Latter-day Saints, we have a longstanding belief that prophets have kept records through generations. Given this belief,

 

1. Do we assume that the records kept early on were fully formed narratives?

 

2. Could Van der Toorn's thesis that the early records were simply loose collections of oracles and prophecies work within the context of what we believe?

 

3. Are 1 and 2 mutually exclusive?

 

4. If 2 is the more accurate depiction, does the model apply to the BoA? Why or why not?

 

5. If the BoA (as Van der Toorn's model suggests) was originally a loose collection of Abraham's oracles (call as prophet, visitations from God, vision of the pre-existence, etc.,) and then enlarged into a full narrative by later scribes, what should we expect about the sources used by the scribes? Should the product reflect the same influences as similar products from its time and place?

 

6. Given 5, are the presence of J and E independent strands in the BoA narrative an indicator that Van der Toorn's model is being followed or an indicator that it is not? Why are why not?

 

Etc.

 

Cheers

Edited August 27, 2013 by J Green

[mfbukowski]

I was going to post this on Hamblin's site but couldn't log in to leave the comment for some reason.

 

As I recall "Option 2" was that the BOA is an inspired "translation" while "Option 3" says that there is no textual relationship between the BOA and the scrolls and that it was an inspired 19th century revelation to Joseph.

I said:

 

 

If Bill H is correct in representing Bokovoy's position, Bokovoy is wise to go with option 2 and not 3 since the distinction between 2 and 3 is a distinction without a practical difference.  The important point is that the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture no matter what its "true" origins were. 

 

One must pick one's battles, and debating the historicity of a document which cannot be proven doctrinal BECAUSE of its historicity, is not an option I would choose. 

 

If tomorrow an exact authenticated Egyptian scroll were found which was an exact literal Egyptian "translation" of the Book of Abraham as we now have it, there would still be a question for non-members to answer about whether or not the newly found scroll had religious value or not.  Obviously there are many Egyptian scrolls not all of which we would take as "doctrine"- that question of what is or is not doctrinal has nothing to do with historic provenance.  Only the Spirit can tell you what to believe- not a historian.

 

I was going to post that over there today, but as it works out I don't have time to figure out the password problem and correct it.

[mfbukowski]

Also, the MI stuff is getting a bit obsessive in my opinion.  Crying over spilled milk is never productive. What's done is done, and let's all get on with life already, and do what's necessary to make it right if that's what needs to be done.

[mfbukowski]

And I'd prefer it if you could ask that question on Bill's blog instead of here. As I said, this is not intended to be a continuation of friction on points like this. I'm simply interested in asking Latter-day Saints about our assumptions on how scripture is formed in light of Van der Toorn's thesis.

 

Cheers

I suppose this applies to me as well- sorry- hadn't read this before I posted. 

[J Green]

I thought that the BOA wasn't actually written by Abraham but was written by scribes who copied the words of Abraham at a much  later date. How and what Joseph translated or whether it was pure revelation inspired by the papyri he had is a separated issue.

 

Agreed. I'm not talking about the issue of whether this work is or was found on an actual papyrus (although I personally believe it was). Separate issue. I'm asking about, as you say, the point at where it is written down by scribes. We as Latter-day Saints generally believe that the prophets kept records. And we would believe this about Abraham as well. Now let's take our beliefs and compare them to Van der Toorn's model for how scripture is formed. He says that the Prophet would have delivered the prophecies, oracles, visions, etc., but that he wouldn't have fleshed them out as a fully written product with a narrative (as we see in Jeremiah). This final product would have come later, when scribes took the collection of visions, etc. and created a narrative to piece them all together.

 

What I'm asking all of us, Deborah, is 1) what do we think about that theory in light of our belief about prophets keeping records (would it still work? why or why not?) and 2) if we accept this theory (even for the sake of argument), how does it apply to the formation of the Book of Abraham?

 

My point is that if we look at the formation of the BoA in light of Van der Toorn's model of how scripture was formed, it may change the discussion taking place on Bill's blog and perhaps offer other options or considerations than the one's being offered there. Just like the formation of Jeremiah and other biblical prophetic books, one could easily see an older core of visions and oracles that come from the patriarch that are fleshed into one complete narrative by later inspired scribes and prophets. Can we accept this model for Jeremiah and still believe it to be inspired and come from Jeremiah and God? What about the BoA? Do the same principles apply?

 

Cheers

Edited August 27, 2013 by J Green

[J Green]

I was going to post this on Hamblin's site but couldn't log in to leave the comment for some reason.

 

As I recall "Option 2" was that the BOA is an inspired "translation" while "Option 3" says that there is no textual relationship between the BOA and the scrolls and that it was an inspired 19th century revelation to Joseph.

I said:

I was going to post that over there today, but as it works out I don't have time to figure out the password problem and correct it.

 

I always love your thoughts, bukowski.

 

I agree that the value comes in what we spiritually believe. But I'm also one who believes that there was an actual physical Book of Abraham somewhere, regardless of what connection there was (or was not) to the papyri. But my personal beliefs aside, I'm curious about how we as Latter-day Saints might react to Van der Toorn's theory about how scripture is formed. Does it challenge what we know? Does it challenge what assume? Neither? I ask because I think the outcome of THAT discussion might make a difference on the other one. 

 

Cheers

Edited August 27, 2013 by J Green

[cinepro]

I always love your thoughts, bukowski.

 

I agree that the value comes in what we spiritually believe. But I'm also one who believes that there was an actual physical Book of Abraham somewhere, regardless of what connection there was (or was not) to the papyri. But my personal beliefs aside, I'm curious about how we as Latter-day Saints might react to Van der Toorn's theory about how scripture is formed. Does it challenge what we know? Does it challenge what assume? Neither? I ask because I think the outcome of THAT discussion might make a difference in the other one. 

 

Cheers

 

 

I think there are much more basic issues in Biblical Criticism that are more damaging to LDS views on scripture that are being soundly ignored (such as Deutero-Isaiah).  I doubt Van der Toorn will ever make a ripple in the pond of LDS scriptural understanding. 

 

Ultimately, the Church still hews to the road set by Fielding and McConkie, as still expressed in the LDS Bible dictionary:

 

 

 

In latter-day revelation we find many sources of information that clarify and substantiate the record of Genesis. The Joseph Smith Translation especially, a portion of which is presented in the book of Moses, offers the best available account of the early chapters. Of exceptional worth is Moses 1, giving an account of some visions and experiences of Moses previous to and in preparation for writing Genesis. This chapter is an introduction to Genesis, just as Genesis is an introduction to the remainder of the Bible. Other chapters of Moses specify certain events that took place previous to the creation of the earth, and form a proper setting thereunto, such as the selection of the Savior in the grand council and the rebellion of Lucifer. The book of Moses also supplies many other valuable concepts, including the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to Adam, Enoch, and all the early patriarchs.

 

Other fruitful sources of latter-day revelation that clarify Genesis are the Book of Mormon, especially 1 Ne. 5 and Ether 1; Doctrine and Covenants, secs. 29, 84, 107; and the book of Abraham. Among other things, latter-day revelation certifies to Moses as the original author of Genesis.

 

LDS Bible Dictionary: Genesis

(emphasis added)

 

God showed it - prophets wrote it - we read it.

Edited August 27, 2013 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

I always love your thoughts, bukowski.

 

I agree that the value comes in what we spiritually believe. But I'm also one who believes that there was an actual physical Book of Abraham somewhere, regardless of what connection there was (or was not) to the papyri. But my personal beliefs aside, I'm curious about how we as Latter-day Saints might react to Van der Toorn's theory about how scripture is formed. Does it challenge what we know? Does it challenge what assume? Neither? I ask because I think the outcome of THAT discussion might make a difference in the other one. 

 

Cheers

Thanks for your kind words, and for the record I agree- I also believe that there was a physical BOA.

 

But I am a pessimist, so I always say to myself:  "What if I am wrong?- does it make a difference?"

 

I have spent a lifetime taking a worst-case position in regard to Mormonism and examining whether or not it makes a difference, and have concluded that one can make a strong case, backed up by philosophers of many different persuasions, that none of these issues ultimately make one iota of difference.

 

Of course I drive my poor wife crazy!

 

But I would love to participate and will read up on the issues before I open up my big mouth again.  I love your posts as well and always like to discuss things with you.

[J Green]

Cinepro,

 

Not much of a prediction to say that Joey Green's thought's about Van der Toorn's theory won't have much impact on the Church's view on scripture interpretation. (For the record, I agree with you. Where do I place my bet?) 

 

But I am interested in your opinion. What does Cinepro think about the formation of scripture? Could Van der Toorn's theory work? If so, does it also apply to the Book of Abraham?

 

Regards

[J Green]

 

But I am a pessimist, so I always say to myself:  "What if I am wrong?- does it make a difference?"

 

 

Love that thought. Probably because I'm wrong a lot. And in this case it doesn't make a bit of difference at all. But for some reason, I'm still curious about it all the same.

 

Cheers

[Deborah]

What I'm asking all of us, Deborah, is 1) what do we think about that theory in light of our belief about prophets keeping records (would it still work? why or why not?) and 2) if we accept this theory (even for the sake of argument), how does it apply to the formation of the Book of Abraham?

 

Considering that Joseph Smith really didn't keep records much himself I don't think it matters as long as someone recorded it. Joseph had scribes even to record events in his journal. Some things he wrote himself but the revelations are primarily from scribes. He may have made corrections but he didn't actually keep the records. The D&C is a result of others gathering ther revelations to put them in a book. Of course we are much more serious about keeping records today and very detailed and mundane records are kept. I work in the temple office and I am amazed at how closely we record and check the work done and the redundancy attached to it. I don't know what they did before computers.

[cinepro]

Cinepro,

 

Not much of a prediction to say that Joey Green's thought's about Van der Toorn's theory won't have much impact on the Church's view on scripture interpretation. (For the record, I agree with you. Where do I place my bet?) 

 

But I am interested in your opinion. What does Cinepro think about the formation of scripture? Could Van der Toorn's theory work? If so, does it also apply to the Book of Abraham?

 

Regards

 

 

[J Green]

Fair enough.

 

I am a blockhead.

[foster]

Also, the MI stuff is getting a bit obsessive in my opinion.  Crying over spilled milk is never productive. What's done is done, and let's all get on with life already, and do what's necessary to make it right if that's what needs to be done.

Critics, hold their grudge for a terribly long unproductive time.

[Robert F. Smith]

Also, the MI stuff is getting a bit obsessive in my opinion.  Crying over spilled milk is never productive. What's done is done, and let's all get on with life already, and do what's necessary to make it right if that's what needs to be done.

D'accord!!

[Robert F. Smith]

 

............ I'm not talking about the issue of whether this work is or was found on an actual papyrus (although I personally believe it was). Separate issue. I'm asking about, as you say, the point at where it is written down by scribes. We as Latter-day Saints generally believe that the prophets kept records. And we would believe this about Abraham as well.

For Mormons, the parade example of prophets keeping records is contained in the Book of Mormon, and (as Brant Gardner has just pointed out in the Interpreter Blog) Nephi doesn't engrave his memoirs on the Small Plates until around 40 years after Clan Lehi left Jerusalem.  Not to say that he and his father didn't take notes on papyrus or vellum in transit, but such preliminary sources could certainly be used to compose a master narrative later.  Moreover, as Bill Hamblin never tires of pointing out, the Book of Mormon demonstrates in very specific terms just how editors / redactors handle previous documents and insert abridgements of them into a master narrative.  Source criticism is alive and well in analyzing the Book of Mormon.

 

Van der Toorn's notions are not new at all, and Mormons should not be nervous over the documentary hypothesis, since it is not hypothetical at all for the Book of Mormon.  It is far more important for us to understand the techniques used and the signs of such redaction within the text -- as demonstrated so well by Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, as well as by the writings of Joe Spencer and John Hilton III.

 

Now let's take our beliefs and compare them to Van der Toorn's model for how scripture is formed. He says that the Prophet would have delivered the prophecies, oracles, visions, etc., but that he wouldn't have fleshed them out as a fully written product with a narrative (as we see in Jeremiah). This final product would have come later, when scribes took the collection of visions, etc. and created a narrative to piece them all together.

Taken to its logical and extreme conclusion, this would mean that nearly all of the Bible is pseudepigraphic.  Indeed, some scholars already believe that.  We need to be very cautious about prescribing what had to be the case for any particular tradition.  Otherwise we may find ourselves asserting that virtually every composition is merely a pastiche of earlier materials, leaving us with no original, coherent compositions of merit.  Would we do that to modern writers of fiction?  Were Sinuhe or the Wenamon Report merely odds and ends thrown together in piecemeal fashion?  Is there nothing, including the cuneiform eponym calendars of Assyro-Babylonian kings, which is not fleshed out later?

 

What I'm asking all of us, Deborah, is 1) what do we think about that theory in light of our belief about prophets keeping records (would it still work? why or why not?) and 2) if we accept this theory (even for the sake of argument), how does it apply to the formation of the Book of Abraham?

 

My point is that if we look at the formation of the BoA in light of Van der Toorn's model of how scripture was formed, it may change the discussion taking place on Bill's blog and perhaps offer other options or considerations than the one's being offered there. Just like the formation of Jeremiah and other biblical prophetic books, one could easily see an older core of visions and oracles that come from the patriarch that are fleshed into one complete narrative by later inspired scribes and prophets. Can we accept this model for Jeremiah and still believe it to be inspired and come from Jeremiah and God? What about the BoA? Do the same principles apply?

Rather than hypothesize, we might better deal with what we really know about the ancient world.  In a series of lectures just last week, David Bokovoy compared BofA facsimile 3 with actual presentation scenes in Egyptian illustrations and in Mesopotamian cylinder seals. 

 

In another part of his lectures, he dealt with "type scenes" which he saw as a "scaffolding" which allows adaptation to various purposes.  In that case, it is not at all absurd from Bokovoy's point of view to see Abraham in fac. 3 seated on the throne about to be anointed king, which is all part of his enthronement & apotheosis (citing O. Keel, Symbolism, 269; N. Wyatt in Ugarit-Forschungen, 31:857 [1999], and Psalm 19:8-10).  It makes little difference for his purposes whether Abraham himself wrote the account with his own hand (he may well have done so), but rather that all the required ritual elements are present (citing Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice [OUP, 1992], 74).

[Robert F. Smith]

I think there are much more basic issues in Biblical Criticism that are more damaging to LDS views on scripture that are being soundly ignored (such as Deutero-Isaiah).  I doubt Van der Toorn will ever make a ripple in the pond of LDS scriptural understanding. 

 

Ultimately, the Church still hews to the road set by Fielding and McConkie, as still expressed in the LDS Bible dictionary:

Quote

In latter-day revelation we find many sources of information that clarify and substantiate the record of Genesis. The Joseph Smith Translation especially, a portion of which is presented in the book of Moses, offers the best available account of the early chapters. Of exceptional worth is Moses 1, giving an account of some visions and experiences of Moses previous to and in preparation for writing Genesis. This chapter is an introduction to Genesis, just as Genesis is an introduction to the remainder of the Bible. Other chapters of Moses specify certain events that took place previous to the creation of the earth, and form a proper setting thereunto, such as the selection of the Savior in the grand council and the rebellion of Lucifer. The book of Moses also supplies many other valuable concepts, including the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to Adam, Enoch, and all the early patriarchs.

 

Other fruitful sources of latter-day revelation that clarify Genesis are the Book of Mormon, especially 1 Ne. 5 and Ether 1; Doctrine and Covenants, secs. 29, 84, 107; and the book of Abraham. Among other things, latter-day revelation certifies to Moses as the original author of Genesis.

 

LDS Bible Dictionary: Genesis

(emphasis added)

 

God showed it - prophets wrote it - we read it.

The "Bible Dictionary" comes under the heading of "Study Helps" and does not constitute official doctrine.  We realize that most readers don't know that, but it is worth pointing out that such positions are taken by very well-meaning people who have no idea what that might mean in scholarly terms.  It can be disregarded.

 

The same applies to imagined difficulties with Deutero-Isaiah.  Most Mormons have no idea that such "problems" exist, and will never read van der Toorn.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith