Hamblin-Bokovoy Boa Discussion: The Formation Of Scripture

[J Green]

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.

I love these thoughts, Deborah. I would also include the History of the Church, where quotes of Joseph were later fashioned into a first-person account with an overarching narrative that he did not write himself.

[J Green]

Excellent thoughts, Robert.

I'm curious about your statement concerning conclusions as to what is pseudeprigraphic. For example, is Van der Toorn really arguing that Jeremiah's original oracle collection would have been incoherent or that the resulting fully-formed narrative would be pseudepigraphic and not properly a product of "Jeremiah"? I'm on the road in DC, so I can' reference my copy right now. I think the idea would be something similar to what you describe in terms of what we both believe happened with Nephi. And from a Latter-day Saint perspective, don't we believe that texts can be reworked and added to in a revelatory fashion?

I'm not sure I'm advocating that we accept Van der Toorn's position en toto. There are parts of his theory that I find difficult to accept. For example, I believe some of the prophets he mentions were actually scribes themselves (e.g., both Isaiah and Jeremiah, for starters). Van der Toorn doesn't accept this, but if it were true, it would change the dynamics of his position a bit.

But the important thing is what we do with assumptions. I'm curious as to what the applications are if we take Van der Toorn's model and apply it to the BOA discussion. Does anything change? Do the options as discussed on Bill's blog change at all?

As always, Bob, I appreciate your comments and your thoughtful feedback.

Joey

[Robert F. Smith]

I love these thoughts, Deborah. I would also include the History of the Church, where quotes of Joseph were later fashioned into a first-person account with an overarching narrative that he did not write himself.

This also applies to Jeremiah.  He was a priest who had at least two scribes (also priests), Baruch and Seraiah, who were brothers.  As some scholars reconstruct the editing process, during the Babylonian Captivity, Baruch took one set of the prophecies of Jeremiah with him to Babylonia, while Jeremiah and Seraiah spent their exile in Egypt.  Based on the two very different texts of Jeremiah and upon Hebrew texts from Qumran, it is clear that the traditional Massoretic Hebrew Text known from the Middle Ages was probably the result of the work of Baruch, while the LXX Greek version was based on a long lost Hebrew Vorlage in Egypt, probably produced by Seraiah (cf. Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 175-176).

[J Green]

This also applies to Jeremiah.  He was a priest who had at least two scribes (also priests), Baruch and Seraiah, who were brothers.  As some scholars reconstruct the editing process, during the Babylonian Captivity, Baruch took one set of the prophecies of Jeremiah with him to Babylonia, while Jeremiah and Seraiah spent their exile in Egypt.  Based on the two very different texts of Jeremiah and upon Hebrew texts from Qumran, it is clear that the traditional Massoretic Hebrew Text known from the Middle Ages was probably the result of the work of Baruch, while the LXX Greek version was based on a long lost Hebrew Vorlage in Egypt, probably produced by Seraiah (cf. Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 175-176).

Good stuff, Bob.

[Robert F. Smith]

Good stuff, Bob.

You're not so bad yourself, Joey.

[rongo]

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?

I don't think that "higher criticism" and "source criticism" axioms are nearly as obvious as some people take for granted. That is, I don't see the "strands" of E, J, P, etc. to be at all obvious. People speak of these as being patently obvious, but I don't find them to be at all. Ditto for "proto" anything, Deutero/Trito Isaiah, etc.

 

I think Sidney Sperry's treatment of the Isaiah problem remains a very good "believing LDS standpoint" response. In a nutshell, too, I think that hand-wringing over things like this has less to do with sources and strands, and much more to do with a fundamental lack of belief in anything supernatural, in actual practice. Sure, people pay lip service to it, but they actually only believe in supernatural things when they're safely in the distant past, and then only a very little.

Edited August 28, 2013 by rongo

[mfbukowski]

D'accord!!

D'Honda? 

[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 on the other one. 

 

Cheers

Well for those who have a literal God's-mouth-to-prophet's-pen view, I think clearly Van der Toorn's thesis, as I understand it, is damaging to that view of scripture formation.

 

Yet if we take a wider view that scripture is a cooperative project which includes collaboration perhaps over generations, it is a different story.

 

Within a given culture, as in "Mormon Culture" I would think it would be possible for God to inspire various individuals in collaboration to develop inspired themes, with perhaps even one generation laying the groundwork for a particular doctrinal model and then further generations adding to and refining that model over time, all as directed by the Holy Ghost.  As LDS we clearly endorse this sort of idea, believing in an "open canon"- that indeed God can and does reveal himself and refine doctrine over time.  Catholics also endorse a similar view in what is termed "Sensus fidelium"

 

As examples of that we have the notion that the geographic area of the US was "preserved" over thousands of years, for the gospel to come forth on this continent and the view that the US Constitution is an "inspired" document.  We also have the expressed view that today's technology has come forth to facilitate the spread of the gospel in our day, that the rate of growth of technological advances increased significantly since the Restoration, and many other similar views, that God can move masses of people to grow and move in response to his inspired providence, indeed the whole notion of "Divine Providence" is indeed linked to such a view, I think.  Indeed the flow of civilization itself can be seen as directed by Divine Providence, and indeed prophecies about any future events at all, including the latter days, the Millenium etc demand that God can see/direct future events.  (please let's not get into free-will/determinism- that is a bog of word-games)

 

So on this view is it so remarkable that God could use scribes and redactors over perhaps generations to get his Word to those who need it?

 

I think not at all!

Edited August 28, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Cultures take time to "grow up" just as people do.

 

I don't see anyone nowadays, even among the most literalistic, worrying about God throwing thunderbolts.

 

As cultures grow up so does their theology- that is what open canons are for.

[rameumptom]

I am very comfortable with the Documentary Hypothesis and Van der Toom's theory, especially in regards to the BoA.  It would explain a lot, such as the papyri dating to about 2000 years ago, rather than to Abraham's day.  It would also explain it being an autobiography, even though (according to Bokovoy) there are no real examples of autobiographies in the times of Abraham.  The BoA becomes an inspired work brought forth via the catalyst theory of an ancient pseudepigraphic document featuring oral truths once taught by Abraham, and converted into his autobiography by a later group of people.

[Glenn101]

I am very comfortable with the Documentary Hypothesis and Van der Toom's theory, especially in regards to the BoA.  It would explain a lot, such as the papyri dating to about 2000 years ago, rather than to Abraham's day.  It would also explain it being an autobiography, even though (according to Bokovoy) there are no real examples of autobiographies in the times of Abraham.  The BoA becomes an inspired work brought forth via the catalyst theory of an ancient pseudepigraphic document featuring oral truths once taught by Abraham, and converted into his autobiography by a later group of people.

 

I am a bit confused by the assertions that the BOA papyri dated to about 2000 years ago. Is this a source criticism type of dating, i.e. dating by content and style, etc. or is it the actual age of  the papyri that is the source of concern? I don't see the latter as a problem at all, as the papyri are almost surely copies of copies of the originals.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think that "higher criticism" and "source criticism" axioms are nearly as obvious as some people take for granted. That is, I don't see the "strands" of E, J, P, etc. to be at all obvious. People speak of these as being patently obvious, but I don't find them to be at all. Ditto for "proto" anything, Deutero/Trito Isaiah, etc.

 

I think Sidney Sperry's treatment of the Isaiah problem remains a very good "believing LDS standpoint" response. In a nutshell, too, I think that hand-wringing over things like this has less to do with sources and strands, and much more to do with a fundamental lack of belief in anything supernatural, in actual practice. Sure, people pay lip service to it, but they actually only believe in supernatural things when they're safely in the distant past, and then only a very little.

Wrongo, rongo!!

B. H. Roberts welcomed a full examination of the Book of Mormon via higher and lower criticism (Improvement Era 14:667-668).  John L. Sorenson applied the documentary hypothesis to the Book of Mormon and (no surprise) found it to be an E document (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf).  I applied source criticism to the Book of Abraham and found it to be primarily a J document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham).  David Bokovoy is doing his own analysis using source criticism, and it will be interesting to see what he concludes.

[J Green]

I think Sidney Sperry's treatment of the Isaiah problem remains a very good "believing LDS standpoint" response. In a nutshell, too, I think that hand-wringing over things like this has less to do with sources and strands, and much more to do with a fundamental lack of belief in anything supernatural, in actual practice. Sure, people pay lip service to it, but they actually only believe in supernatural things when they're safely in the distant past, and then only a very little.

Hey, Rongo. I too, appreciate Sidney Sperry as a starting point. And I appreciate your viewpoint. But mine is a bit different, although there is no hand-wringing involved. I think we should be engaged in the discussion, trying all things and holding fast to the good. It takes effort, and it may involve good men trying out competing theories at times, but I think if we approach it with study and faith we can make advances both spiritually and academically.

Just my two cents.

[J Green]

Within a given culture, as in "Mormon Culture" I would think it would be possible for God to inspire various individuals in collaboration to develop inspired themes, with perhaps even one generation laying the groundwork for a particular doctrinal model and then further generations adding to and refining that model over time, all as directed by the Holy Ghost.

Great point. Our understanding of many of the practices in this dispensation seem to develop over time. Like Baptism for the Dead. The ordinance is refined after several iterations of revelation, and then we start keeping records, staying within gender boundaries, and making other changes here and there to refine the end product. God seems okay with a rough start and an evolving process that works towards perfection.

[J Green]

I am very comfortable with the Documentary Hypothesis and Van der Toom's theory, especially in regards to the BoA.  It would explain a lot, such as the papyri dating to about 2000 years ago, rather than to Abraham's day.  It would also explain it being an autobiography, even though (according to Bokovoy) there are no real examples of autobiographies in the times of Abraham.  The BoA becomes an inspired work brought forth via the catalyst theory of an ancient pseudepigraphic document featuring oral truths once taught by Abraham, and converted into his autobiography by a later group of people.

Thanks for your comments, Gary.

[David T]

John L. Sorenson applied the documentary hypothesis to the Book of Mormon and (no surprise) found it to be an E document (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf).  I applied source criticism to the Book of Abraham and found it to be primarily a J document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham).  David Bokovoy is doing his own analysis using source criticism, and it will be interesting to see what he concludes.

 

I've come to the same conclusion recently myself, concerning the Book of Mormon. Wasn't aware of these papers. I'm not aware of any essential evidence of definite P (post-exilic Priestly) material, and it would definitely explain the lack of a Leviticus-inspired understanding of the Law of Moses, and much more of an JE-Style one. Very very interesting, actually.

Edited August 29, 2013 by David T

[J Green]

I've come to the same conclusion recently myself, concerning the Book of Mormon. Wasn't aware of these papers. I'm not aware of any essential evidence of definite P (post-exilic Priestly) material, and it would definitely explain the lack of a Leviticus-inspired understanding of the Law of Moses, and much more of an JE-Style one. Very very interesting, actually.

Agreed. Robert is one cool cat.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've come to the same conclusion recently myself, concerning the Book of Mormon. Wasn't aware of these papers. I'm not aware of any essential evidence of definite P (post-exilic Priestly) material, and it would definitely explain the lack of a Leviticus-inspired understanding of the Law of Moses, and much more of an JE-Style one. Very very interesting, actually.

I did find some P in the BofA.

[Glenn101]

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

 

Oh, it make sense. Maybe I need to clarify just a bit. It is my understanding that source criticiam and the documentary hypothesis do not include the possibility of God's own voice and interactions with God playing a part in the process. Without a doubt, ancients texts have been altered, edited, redacted, etc. The Bible is no exception. In my opinion, Moses, or whoever was the author(s) of Genesis hardly received that material as one or many revelations from God, but was rather recording and abridging from several sources. Who knows just how many hands and revisions had preceded Moses' effort.

However, how would source criticism divine the difference between an actual quote from God by a prophet, an inspired revelation by a prophet,  or the influence of an editor compiling an abridgement or collecting several disparate pieces of scripture and claiming that they came from one author, such as the case is made for deutero and trito Isaiah.

 

Glenn

[David T]

I did find some P in the BofA.

The Genesis 1 Creation segment is a bit of a giveaway for P in that doc

[David T]

And also, doesn't the Biblical narrative itself covering the period and events covered by the Book of Abraham mainly (almost exclusively) make use of J? It seems at brief review that the narrative material following Abraham parallel to the BoA would only possibly have J as its source, until the Creation sequence, which then brings in and merges P and J, with BoA 4 being an expansion of Genesis 1 (P), and BoA 5 being an expansion of Genesis 2 (merging the end of the P story with the J account).

 

In other words, it's not surprising, whatever one's view of the formation of the BoA that E isn't represented, because, as generally understood, Genesis itself doesn't make use of E until about Genesis 20. 

 

In other words, it's an uphill battle to try to establish an argument that the Abraham source texts pre-dates the form of Genesis we have here, because it utilizes each of the expected Genesis sources exactly where we would expect them to - with the P Creation Account being the most eye-raising, especially with the way it is attempted to harmonize and merge with the separate J story.

 

This is one of the key reasons (among many) I find it far more reasonable to see the BoA as a late Pseudepigraphal document. Whether an ancient (although post-dating the Bible) recovered one, or one that originated through 19th Century inspiration to Joseph. 

 

To be fair, I used to lead more to the idea of the Book of Mormon being a thoroughly  modern (though still inspired) text, but much of the work of Brant Gardner (in addition to the work of others, and my own independent thoughts) has done much to give me material that finds myself leaning substantially more towards it having an authentic ancient antecedent.

 

When it comes to the Bible Revision and Book of Abraham, however, I am still very substantially in the Modern Inspired Midrash/Targum camp. I think there is very good reason to allow for and (expect!) both as part of evidence of the restoration of the authentic prophetic office and role.

 

Add to that the fact that we know of and have conclusive proof (yes, proof) that Joseph consciously crafted Pseuedepigraphic revelatory texts (See the complicated and in depth fictionalization of the United Firm revelations as published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants re-written and revised to be revelations declared to Enoch and His People! - for the very best and most in depth exploration of this topic, see Chris Smith's "The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations", as published in the /sadly discontinued/ Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies)

Edited August 30, 2013 by David T

[langbert]

Mormon Midrash...indeed...

[mfbukowski]

That's roadrash you get in the middle when you have a big belly from all those Mormon ice cream socials, and fall off your motorcycle.

Edited September 26, 2013 by mfbukowski