Friendly Fire from BYU: Opening Old Book of Abraham Wounds Without the First Aid

[aussieguy55]

Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed calls it The Failed Search for the Historical Abraham. p.33.

[alter idem]

The Papyri fragments that survived and were rediscovered in the 1960's were carbon dated to 300 BC to 50 AD, so it seems a reasonable assumption the rest of the scrolls in Joseph's possession were from the same period.

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

In other words, does Bokovoy side with the post 70's scholarly shift that places the  timing of Abraham in the bronze age rather than in the 2nd millenium BCE? (see HERE) Or does he doubt the historicity of Abraham altogether for want of archaeological evidence? (I would have added this to my previous post, but I don't yet have edit capability or the ability to like various posts._

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I suspect Bokovoy just dismisses tales from before the Kingdom as legends or myths not to be trusted. That tends to be the mainstream view with even the Davidic kingdom treated very skeptically. 

A problem with a lot of apologetic attempts to ground the Book of Abraham is that they tend to appeal to pseudopigraphal or midrash works that are from the Ptolemaic era or the later Roman era or even early medieval texts. They were by and large unavailable to Joseph Smith which is why they are appealed to. However they still are quite late and Bokovoy undoubtedly would see those similar dependencies on post-exilic traditions in the Book of Abraham.

If we take seriously the papyri as a 1st century work though that shouldn't be as big of an issue. It's the desire to defend the believe that it wasn't just an Abrahamic text but actually written with his own hand on *that* papyri that's at issue.

I think Bokovoy also notes the obvious dependencies on the KJV text much as the Book of Mormon has such dependencies. But since the KEP clearly show the perception by Joseph and his followers that the text is a very, very loose translation (one character can represent multiple sentences) I think this less of an issue. In a loose translation such dependencies don't matter since there will be numerous ways to translate the same thing. (I'm not saying that Joseph's view of the Book of Abraham were right, mind you, just that they indicate a belief in a loose translation)

My personal feeling is that any attempt to defend the text as legitimate will have to see it as a composite work made up of 1st century, 19th century and then elements from the historic Abraham.

Edited March 28, 2019 by clarkgoble

[alter idem]

"It's the desire to defend the believe that it wasn't just an Abrahamic text but actually written with his own hand on *that* papyri that's at issue."

Are there presently church scholars who believe that the papyri were actually written by Abraham 4,000 years ago?

 

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

 

The word 'purported' means 'appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so, alleged.'  This is the word Joseph used in describing the papyri.  Personally, that's always suggested to me that Joseph was stating an assumption, but not stating fact.  This assumption includes his statement 'written by his own hand'.

Nibley has also weighed in, giving a possible explanation, which I personally like;

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/By_his_own_hand

 

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect Bokovoy just dismisses tales from before the Kingdom as legends or myths not to be trusted. That tends to be the mainstream view with even the Davidic kingdom treated very skeptically. 

A problem with a lot of apologetic attempts to ground the Book of Abraham is that they tend to appeal to pseudopigraphal or midrash works that are from the Ptolemaic era or the later Roman era or even early medieval texts. They were by and large unavailable to Joseph Smith which is why they are appealed to. However they still are quite late and Bokovoy undoubtedly would see those similar dependencies on post-exilic traditions in the Book of Abraham.

If the intent behind using the Ptolemaic sources that were unavailable to Joseph was to provide evidence that Joseph wasn't the author of the BoA, then I don't see how that is a problem.

It may be a problem if apologists were arguing that Abraham personally inked the characters on the papyrus in 2nd millennium BCE.  I don't recall any apologists who did.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If we take seriously the papyri as a 1st century work though that shouldn't be as big of an issue. It's the desire to defend the believe that it wasn't just an Abrahamic text but actually written with his own hand on *that* papyri that's at issue.

I think Bokovoy also notes the obvious dependencies on the KJV text much as the Book of Mormon has such dependencies.

If one considers the prospect of inspired conformity to the KJV,  then dependency may not be all that obvious.

And, while distinguishing between conformity and dependency may seem at first glance to be trite, I think it becomes important when drawing assumptions about the translation process and considering authorship.

Quote

But since the KEP clearly show the perception by Joseph and his followers that the text is a very, very loose translation (one character can represent multiple sentences)

While I agree with the notion of loose translations, I am not sure that the KEP are the best supportive example since the evidence seems to suggest, at least to me, that the KEP weren't used as a translation device, but rather as a failed attempt to create a new Adamic-like language called Egyptian.

Quote

I think this less of an issue. In a loose translation such dependencies don't matter since there will be numerous ways to translate the same thing. (I'm not saying that Joseph's view of the Book of Abraham were right, mind you, just that they indicate a belief in a loose translation) from the historic Abraham.

My personal feeling is that any attempt to defend the text as legitimate will have to see it as a composite work made up of 1st century, 19th century and then elements

As long as people understand that the best "defense" of the legitimacy of the BoA is spiritual confirmation and letting the words of the book speak for themselves illuminatingly and edifyingly from the dust, then I am fine with what you suggest. I see no reason why God couldn't reveal to Joseph the Abraham story in 19th century English in a way that conforms somewhat to portions of the KJV. Rather, I see it as making good sense, if for no other reason than to  test people's spiritual faith with worldly cares such as secular-determined authorship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If we take seriously the papyri as a 1st century work though that shouldn't be as big of an issue.

But then this just unnecessarily adds a new and unknown party to the equation that ought to be the first excision using Occam's Razor. If you're going to argue that the BofA is pseudepigraphy, then why not just make Joseph the author instead of some imagined 1st century Jewish Egyptian? Especially when the latter then requires God to go to absurd lengths (and only God knows how many instances of breaches of free will) to get the writings of some random and unknown author into the hands of Joseph Smith (who already had the ability to reveal lost texts that he had no access to at all [D&C 7]).

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

But then this just unnecessarily adds a new and unknown party to the equation that ought to be the first excision using Occam's Razor. If you're going to argue that the BofA is pseudepigraphy, then why not just make Joseph the author instead of some imagined 1st century Jewish Egyptian? Especially when the latter then requires God to go to absurd lengths (and only God knows how many instances of breaches of free will) to get the writings of some random and unknown author into the hands of Joseph Smith (who already had the ability to reveal lost texts that he had no access to at all [D&C 7]).

Occam, per the use you just proposed, excises a whole lot of Isaiah and all of Deuteronomy.

Please don't ask about Daniel.

Edited March 28, 2019 by USU78

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Occam, per the use you just proposed, excises a whole lot of Isaiah and all of Deuteronomy.

Please don't ask about Daniel.

You obviously don't understand Occam's Razor. Here is a good primer for ya. Short version: it's a principle of eliminating unnecessary assumptions.

For my argument, if one already accepts that the BofA is pseudipigraphy, then the easiest and clearest explanation is that Joseph was the pseudepigraphic author. Positing a 1st century author is unnecessary.

The texts of the Hebrew Bible are not assumptions. They aren't theories. They aren't speculations. They are existing texts. Occam's Razor has zero application to their existence.

Edited March 28, 2019 by the narrator

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You obviously don't understand Occam's Razor. Here is a good primer for ya. Short version: it's a principle of eliminating unnecessary assumptions.

For my argument, if one already accepts that the BofA is pseudipigraphy, then the easiest and clearest explanation is that Joseph was the pseudepigraphic author. Positing a 1st century author is unnecessary.

The texts of the Hebrew Bible are not assumptions. They aren't theories. They aren't speculations. They are existing texts. Occam's Razor has zero application to their existence.

I decided I would rather not drag you down into my rabbit hole.  You don't understand my point, and I'd prefer not to distract further from this thread.

Edited March 28, 2019 by USU78

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

But then this just unnecessarily adds a new and unknown party to the equation that ought to be the first excision using Occam's Razor.

Are you talking about 1st century context or 2 millennia context?

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

The texts of the Hebrew Bible are not assumptions. They aren't theories. They aren't speculations. They are existing texts. Occam's Razor has zero application to their existence.

I think he was talking about textual criticism and dating portions within particular texts.

11 hours ago, alter idem said:

Are there presently church scholars who believe that the papyri were actually written by Abraham 4,000 years ago?

No since they are demonstrably from around the 1st century. However critics bring up the statement by Joseph to argue he thought they were. The question then becomes what the nature of our text is. A popular theory, albeit one now in trouble, was that there was a missing text that had a corrupt form of an authentic Abraham monograph. An other possible theory is that Joseph deconstructed the text getting back indirectly to texts that were an influence on our text. So our translation might include 1st century texts along with actual narrative from Abraham without there ever having been a text exactly like ours. This is somewhat different from the catalyst theory which tends to see the papyri as unrelated to the text and merely creating a situation where Joseph got revelation on the actual Abraham. My problem with the catalyst theory is that I think some elements of our text clearly don't relate to Abraham, such as the variant on Genesis 1 that likely is post-exilic at best.

9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

As long as people understand that the best "defense" of the legitimacy of the BoA is spiritual confirmation and letting the words of the book speak for themselves illuminatingly and edifyingly from the dust, then I am fine with what you suggest.

That doesn't necessarily tell us much about the nature of the text. Further not everyone has a direct spiritual confirmation of the text. Some apologists arguing for the missing papyri theory have actually said they don't have a direct testimony of the Book of Abraham but infer it's nature from their testimony of the Church. (For example John Gee has made statements like that)

I do think that the nature of the Book of Abraham is different from the natural of the Book of Mormon. That is I think the Book of Mormon's message depends upon there being real Nephites whose history was roughly that outlined in the Book of Mormon. I don't think much hinges on the historicity of the Book of Abraham even though I personally believe there was a historic Abraham.

9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

While I agree with the notion of loose translations, I am not sure that the KEP are the best supportive example since the evidence seems to suggest, at least to me, that the KEP weren't used as a translation device, but rather as a failed attempt to create a new Adamic-like language called Egyptian.

I do think Joseph and others appear to think there was an ideal language common to the papyri and the Book of Mormon. I think they're clearly wrong in that although there were similar views in the Renaissance that possibly influenced Joseph and his followers there. 

That said, I do think Joseph thought the KEP was tied to the translation of the Book of Abraham even if there's still debate about what direction the influence went. Of course I'm not arguing that the KEP tells us what was really going on. Merely their conceptions of what was going on.

9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If the intent behind using the Ptolemaic sources that were unavailable to Joseph was to provide evidence that Joseph wasn't the author of the BoA, then I don't see how that is a problem.

I think the issue is that some are arguing that these legends or pseudopigrapha tell us something about Abraham that supports the Book of Abraham. That is they're not just concerned with eliminating Joseph as author.

Ultimately the issue is the text rather than Joseph I think. Although I certainly grant you skeptics think Joseph wrote it. Thus debates about say when 1 Enoch would have been available to Joseph or what legends were in Kabbalistic or Talmudic texts (even if it's unlikely Joseph had access to such resources). Certainly Masonry as a repository of esoteric Renaissance beliefs becomes significant in such debates though.

However I also think that apologists who reject the catalyst theory have to explain the relationship of the text to the papyri. Thus the emphasis on the missing papyri theory - although it is in poor shape as best I can see

9 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If one considers the prospect of inspired conformity to the KJV,  then dependency may not be all that obvious.

Could you clarify this a bit? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Wade Englund]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That doesn't necessarily tell us much about the nature of the text. Further not everyone has a direct spiritual confirmation of the text. Some apologists arguing for the missing papyri theory have actually said they don't have a direct testimony of the Book of Abraham but infer it's nature from their testimony of the Church. (For example John Gee has made statements like that)

In terms of the gospel plan, the nature of the text is of little or no significance compared to the precepts conveyed by the text, particularly when confirmed and enlightened by the Spirit, whether directly or otherwise.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I do think that the nature of the Book of Abraham is different from the natural of the Book of Mormon. That is I think the Book of Mormon's message depends upon there being real Nephites whose history was roughly that outlined in the Book of Mormon. I don't think much hinges on the historicity of the Book of Abraham even though I personally believe there was a historic Abraham.

You strike me as a very bright person, and so I figure your breath-taking comment was off-the-cuff and didn't entail much thought. Two phrases will hopefully stir your mind: Father Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant, if not also the 12 tribes and the scattering and gathering of Israel. If it is of help, see the 29 references to Abraham in the Book of Mormon, and the 34 references to Abraham in the D&C.  Abraham, and his story (particularly the types of Christ), are critical to the gospel throughout time, but the last dispensation in particular.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I do think Joseph and others appear to think there was an ideal language common to the papyri and the Book of Mormon. I think they're clearly wrong in that although there were similar views in the Renaissance that possibly influenced Joseph and his followers there. 

That said, I do think Joseph thought the KEP was tied to the translation of the Book of Abraham even if there's still debate about what direction the influence went. Of course I'm not arguing that the KEP tells us what was really going on. Merely their conceptions of what was going on.

Whether Joseph and others were wrong or not, evidence is compelling that the KEP weren't produced to assist in the BoA translation, but rather to formulate a new language. They were dependent upon the BoA translation rather than the other way around.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is that some are arguing that these legends or pseudopigrapha tell us something about Abraham that supports the Book of Abraham. That is they're not just concerned with eliminating Joseph as author.

Ultimately the issue is the text rather than Joseph I think. Although I certainly grant you skeptics think Joseph wrote it. Thus debates about say when 1 Enoch would have been available to Joseph or what legends were in Kabbalistic or Talmudic texts (even if it's unlikely Joseph had access to such resources). Certainly Masonry as a repository of esoteric Renaissance beliefs becomes significant in such debates though.

However I also think that apologists who reject the catalyst theory have to explain the relationship of the text to the papyri. Thus the emphasis on the missing papyri theory - although it is in poor shape as best I can see

The critics have presented a number of different challenges to the BoA, and apologists have attempted to answer each. I think you may be connecting the right answers to the wrong challenges.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you clarify this a bit? I'm not sure what you mean. 

To me, in terms of growth in faith unto Christ, particularly as the Church was first established and beginning to grow within the Christian nation of America, there was divine wisdom in inspiring the translation the Book of Abraham, as well as portions of the Book of Mormon,  in a way that was consistent with, if not also significantly echoed, the generally accepted canon of the day--i.e. the KJV Bible.  It was the verity and salvific nature of the message that was critical, rather than possible and rare anachronistic elements in the translation.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

 

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Are you talking about 1st century context or 2 millennia context?

I'm saying that positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author (or any pseudepigraphic author who isn't Joseph Smith) is an unnecessary assumption.

 

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he was talking about textual criticism and dating portions within particular texts.

That does't make his misunderstanding of Occam's Razor any less of a misunderstanding.

[Metis_LDS]

On 3/25/2019 at 2:58 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds rather like a nihilistic conclusion, or was that just an emotional reaction?  Are you quite sure that Joseph and the Egyptologists are actually opposed to each other?

Sorry I was away and did not see our post for a few days.  No it is not an emotional reaction.

I was really curious to see if the symbols on the tombs could be read.  Here is an example that was read from a kings tomb. The expert read one carved line. "The King does not give you his magic"  to me this makes little sense on a tomb the king is dead already so yeah he will not be giving anything, also the word magic in this context troubles me. This is only one example but for me the big picture is that we just do not know some of these symbols.

[stemelbow]

30 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I'm saying that positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author (or any pseudepigraphic author who isn't Joseph Smith) is an unnecessary assumption.

 

That does't make his misunderstanding of Occam's Razor any less of a misunderstanding.

The problem with employing Occam's Razor and positing Joseph was the pseudepigraphic author is Joseph didn't claim such.  If he were the author as you claim, you'd think he'd know it.  And if he knew it, then he was being pretty dishonest to claim he was translating, no?   I wonder if all the pseudepigraphic authors composing the Bible, for instance, were aware they were pseudepigraphic.  Maybe they thought, like Joseph, they were just bringing forth an old text that never was via the gift and power of God?  

If so, I wonder what in the world God is thinking.  The texts aren't all that interesting in the end.  A lot of words and made up stories, many of which have lame messages to them?  

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

.................................

I was really curious to see if the symbols on the tombs could be read.  Here is an example that was read from a kings tomb. The expert read one carved line. "The King does not give you his magic"  to me this makes little sense on a tomb the king is dead already so yeah he will not be giving anything, also the word magic in this context troubles me. This is only one example but for me the big picture is that we just do not know some of these symbols.

Part of the problem may be that ancient Egypt is an alien culture from thousands of years ago.  A culture in which a dead king isn't really dead at all, but is actually fully alive on the other side -- a concept which some modern Christians may even hold, though many have now abandoned such faith in immortality.

As to magic, which is a term of opprobrium or of Las Vegas style showmanship, it had real currency in ancient Egypt.  Robert Ritner even wrote his doctoral dissertation on Egyptian magic, and I heard him lecture on the subject at UCLA years ago.  Modern scholars see magic as an integral part of religion, something the public just doesn't get.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I'm saying that positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author (or any pseudepigraphic author who isn't Joseph Smith) is an unnecessary assumption...................................

That would be a reasonable assumption, Loyd, if and only if Joseph had access to the data incorporated in that pseudepigraphon.  As it is, we know that he did not have such access -- no one did in the early 19th century A.D., even if they had a PhD, command of the requisite languages, and access to the Bodleian.  At a minimum, even if there had never been a real Abraham, the presumably pseudepigraphic Book of Abraham would have to have been composed in Ptolemaic late antiquity by a knowledgeable Jew in Egypt.  That "saves the appearances," and complies with Occam's Razor.

That still leaves many imponderables, but it is the simplest explanation, and has good precedent.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I'm saying that positing a 1st century pseudepigraphic author (or any pseudepigraphic author who isn't Joseph Smith) is an unnecessary assumption.

That does't make his misunderstanding of Occam's Razor any less of a misunderstanding.

I think what I'm saying is that it's debatable whether we can ignore the 1st century text depending upon what we think the translation process involves. Of course to a catalyst theory proponent there is no 1st century pseudepigrapha or even Abraham in a Greek or Egyptian magic text. To them the papyri exists merely to get Joseph to ask questions. The problem for catalyst proponents (and I'm not saying you're one - I'm not sure of your position) is that it's unclear why Joseph wouldn't have realized the papyri was acting only as a catalyst. Explaining the relationship of the papyri to the text, even if there's only a fragmentary relationship, seems important. How one approaches that question determines whether the 1st century texts (extant or hypothetical) matter or not.

To Ockham, I confess Ockham's Razor is a pet peeve of mine. When used in science it usually just means parsimony. However simplicity is always only relative to a particular set of assumptions and method. Further the simplest answer isn't always the correct one. (Look at the Standard Model in physics) When used carefully it just means not multiplying metaphysical categories unnecessarily. However both uses frequently have what's termed a nominalistic tendency to them that can be problematic. (I'll not bore everyone  going into a tangent on nominalism) Ultimately my point is nearly everyone uses Ockham's Razor in a very loose way, which is fine, since even the pedantic uses usually don't relate to what Ockham said anyway.

10 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

In terms of the gospel plan, the nature of the text is of little or no significance compared to the precepts conveyed by the text, particularly when confirmed and enlightened by the Spirit, whether directly or otherwise.

Yes, although how we read the text depends upon its nature and context as well. In any case while I don't deny your point, I'm not sure that makes the other discussions irrelevant.

10 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Whether Joseph and others were wrong or not, evidence is compelling that the KEP weren't produced to assist in the BoA translation, but rather to formulate a new language. They were dependent upon the BoA translation rather than the other way around.

I confess my relative ignorance on these matters. I've not really looked closely at the issues for some time. However that conclusion was controversial when I did look at it. From what I can tell it remains quite debatable. However not knowing the nuances of the debate I can't say too much. I'd just say that if it were extremely compelling there wouldn't be so much continued disagreement on the point.

Edited March 29, 2019 by clarkgoble

[the narrator]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The problem with employing Occam's Razor and positing Joseph was the pseudepigraphic author is Joseph didn't claim such.

It's actually not a problem at because the theoretical 1st century pseudepigraphic author also did not claim to be a pseudepigraphic author. While Joseph Smith--as a real person who gave the English text of the BofA--provides plenty of explanatory utility to understanding the BofM, the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic provides zero. They only exist as an apologetic construct for those demanding that the BofA be an actual translation of an ancient text while recognizing that the base text (minus all the anachronistic KJV and 19th century additions) can be no longer than a couple millenia old.

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If he were the author as you claim, you'd think he'd know it.

Not at all. IMO Joseph was the author and sincerely believed he had writings from Abraham that he could divinely translate/channel into English, or at minimum believed he was providing what writings of Abraham ought to have said.

But much of this is all besides the point. Even if the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic author had some sort of explanatory utility that could not be better explained by Joseph being the author (and the imaginary person has none), that little utility would be far outweighed by the absurdity of God going to great and absurd lengths to get the writings of some incredibly obscure and unknown (and still unknown) pseudepigraphic author into the hands of Joseph in the 19th century--especially when God could have (1) simply revealed the content of that authors writings to Joseph Smith, such as with D&C 7, or (2) just had Joseph create new inspired pseudepigraphy.

From a "believers" perspective--meaning that from the perspective that Joseph Smith was inspired by God and that God was somehow involved with the production of the BofA, what makes more sense:
 

1. Joseph Smith as pseudepigraphic author:

• Some random funerary texts happen their way into Kirtland
• Joseph believes, based on the images on the papyri and his belief that ancient texts come his way for him to translate (see also BofM and Kinderhook Plates), that the papyri contain writings of Abraham
• Through a combination of inspiration, study, sources, etc., Joseph produces a pseudepigraphic text containing what clearly seem to be 19th century ideas of what he believes Abraham did or would have written

2. Joseph Smith as divine seer of an an ancient inspired pseudepigraphic work

• God inspires some random and otherwise unknown Jewish Egyptian (or is it Egyptian Jew?) to write a short pseudepigraphic text of the writings of Abraham with ancient ideas that seem to better reflect 19th century ideas
• Some random funerary texts happen their way into Kirtland
• Joseph believes, based on the images on the papyri and his belief that ancient texts come his way for him to translate (see also BofM and Kinderhook Plates), that either the papyri contain the writings of Abraham or at least point to some in some way
• God channels to Joseph Smith (such as with D&C 7) the pseudepigraphic writings of this random and unknown Egyptian/Jews when God could have just inspired Joseph to write his own (#1)

3. Joseph Smith as divine translator of an ancient inspired pseudepigraphic work

• God inspires some random Jewish Egyptian (or is it Egyptian Jew?) to write a short pseudepigraphic text of the writings of Abraham with ancient ideas that seem to better reflect 19th century ideas
• The author then cryptically encodes those writings into some rather generic funerary texts, attaches them to funerary texts, or some resource-savvy Egyptian uses the papyri the texts were written on to create completely unrelated generic funerary texts.
• God protects those funerary texts for nearly two thousand years, then inspires/controls multiple thieves and traders to get those texts out of the tombs, into Europe, across the Atlantic, and into some small town in Ohio, just so that Joseph could translate what God could have just revealed (#2) to him (such as D&C 7) or been inspire him to write his own of (#1).

(FWIW, I think its VERY safe to say that D&C 7 is Joseph's own pseudepigraphic writing.)

[the narrator]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

if Joseph had access to the data incorporated in that pseudepigraphon.  As it is, we know that he did not have such access

Well I'll agree with you on this: Joseph clearly did not understand Egyptian.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well I'll agree with you on this: Joseph clearly did not understand Egyptian.

Of course not, and that is the whole point.  😎

[Wade Englund]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, although how we read the text depends upon its nature and context as well. In any case while I don't deny your point, I'm not sure that makes the other discussions irrelevant.

It only depends if one is reading the text through a secular lens rather than through the Spirit.

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess my relative ignorance on these matters. I've not really looked closely at the issues for some time. However that conclusion was controversial when I did look at it. From what I can tell it remains quite debatable. However not knowing the nuances of the debate I can't say too much. I'd just say that if it were extremely compelling there wouldn't be so much continued disagreement on the point.

Old theories die hard, particularly if there is considerable vested interest. But, it would hardly do for the matter to be definitively decided. Removal of doubt would remove the test of faith and thus the prospect of growth in faith. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

It's actually not a problem at because the theoretical 1st century pseudepigraphic author also did not claim to be a pseudepigraphic author. While Joseph Smith--as a real person who gave the English text of the BofA--provides plenty of explanatory utility to understanding the BofM, the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic provides zero. They only exist as an apologetic construct for those demanding that the BofA be an actual translation of an ancient text while recognizing that the base text (minus all the anachronistic KJV and 19th century additions) can be no longer than a couple millenia old.

That is unfair to scholars who know very well that it is impossible to claim on the basis of secular data that the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Abraham, or the Book of Abraham can be dated earlier than late antiquity.  One cannot even show that there was a real Abraham ca. 2000 B.C.  All scholars are reduced to admitting only that we have numerous instances of pseudepigraphic writings, the contents of which demonstrate their provenance.

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

...............................

But much of this is all besides the point. Even if the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic author had some sort of explanatory utility that could not be better explained by Joseph being the author (and the imaginary person has none), that little utility would be far outweighed by the absurdity of God going to great and absurd lengths to get the writings of some incredibly obscure and unknown (and still unknown) pseudepigraphic author into the hands of Joseph in the 19th century--especially when God could have (1) simply revealed the content of that authors writings to Joseph Smith, such as with D&C 7, or (2) just had Joseph create new inspired pseudepigraphy.

From a "believers" perspective--meaning that from the perspective that Joseph Smith was inspired by God and that God was somehow involved with the production of the BofA, what makes more sense:.............................

3. Joseph Smith as divine translator of an ancient inspired pseudepigraphic work

• God inspires some random Jewish Egyptian (or is it Egyptian Jew?) to write a short pseudepigraphic text of the writings of Abraham with ancient ideas that seem to better reflect 19th century ideas

There were no Jewish Egyptians.  The large Jewish community in Egypt, as with other foreign communities, was very separate and usually endogamous (the Jews of the Elephantine military colony did marry some Egyptian women).  Any pseudepigraphic creations normally involved tradents who took already extant legends and combined and edited them into a coherent story.  Many of the tropes and formulas are shared among these stories.  They are certainly not reflective of 19th century ideas.

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

• The author then cryptically encodes those writings into some rather generic funerary texts, attaches them to funerary texts, or some resource-savvy Egyptian uses the papyri the texts were written on to create completely unrelated generic funerary texts.

I have yet to see a demonstration that the BofA is based on any "generic funerary papyri."  That is a favorite claim, but carries with it some impossible consequences.

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

• God protects those funerary texts for nearly two thousand years, then inspires/controls multiple thieves and traders to get those texts out of the tombs, into Europe, across the Atlantic, and into some small town in Ohio, just so that Joseph could translate what God could have just revealed (#2) to him (such as D&C 7) or been inspire him to write his own of (#1).

No more preposterous or absurd than the suggested mode through which the Book of Mormon plates and paraphernalia found their way to that hill near Manchester, NY, so that Joseph could find them.  Indeed, the same empty claims are made of the 19th century contents of the BofM as are made of the BofA.  No real discussion is ever allowed on those competing and mutually exclusive claims.

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

(FWIW, I think its VERY safe to say that D&C 7 is Joseph's own pseudepigraphic writing.)

The thing about D&C 7 is that it contains no data which could possibly be evaluated by secular means to test its ultimate claims.  It can only be taken as authentic on faith.  That leaves it completely outside the realm of scholarly discussion of the BofA.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

It's actually not a problem at because the theoretical 1st century pseudepigraphic author also did not claim to be a pseudepigraphic author.

We don't know that, if there were such.  We dont' know that pseduepigraphic authors of various parts of the Bible did not claim to be such either.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

While Joseph Smith--as a real person who gave the English text of the BofA--provides plenty of explanatory utility to understanding the BofM, the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic provides zero. They only exist as an apologetic construct for those demanding that the BofA be an actual translation of an ancient text while recognizing that the base text (minus all the anachronistic KJV and 19th century additions) can be no longer than a couple millenia old.

Well, it's only reasonable to try and pin it to an older era because that is what was claimed by Joseph--that is what is demanded by the story from whence it came.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Not at all. IMO Joseph was the author and sincerely believed he had writings from Abraham that he could divinely translate/channel into English, or at minimum believed he was providing what writings of Abraham ought to have said.

But much of this is all besides the point. Even if the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic author had some sort of explanatory utility that could not be better explained by Joseph being the author (and the imaginary person has none), that little utility would be far outweighed by the absurdity of God going to great and absurd lengths to get the writings of some incredibly obscure and unknown (and still unknown) pseudepigraphic author into the hands of Joseph in the 19th century--especially when God could have (1) simply revealed the content of that authors writings to Joseph Smith, such as with D&C 7, or (2) just had Joseph create new inspired pseudepigraphy.

Well I agree with you on these points.  But this heavily weighs in favor of criticisms put to the BoA and Joseph's claims.  It's unreasonable to suggest the result is scripture when Joseph said that it was from an earlier time.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

From a "believers" perspective--meaning that from the perspective that Joseph Smith was inspired by God and that God was somehow involved with the production of the BofA, what makes more sense:
 

1. Joseph Smith as pseudepigraphic author:

• Some random funerary texts happen their way into Kirtland
• Joseph believes, based on the images on the papyri and his belief that ancient texts come his way for him to translate (see also BofM and Kinderhook Plates), that the papyri contain writings of Abraham
• Through a combination of inspiration, study, sources, etc., Joseph produces a pseudepigraphic text containing what clearly seem to be 19th century ideas of what he believes Abraham did or would have written

It's as if the BoM is the same.  I doubt the plates contained what became the BoM.  I mean to say even if the BoM story happened in history, that they kept their history, that Mormon and Moroni did some work to edit, it is likely the result of their story telling was not necessarily what came out as the BoM stories.  But this does little but make one wonder, what was God thinking?  Why make up stories, or let someone do so, why pretend that the stories themselves carry any more meaning or purpose than so many hosts of other stories?  Why scripture at all?  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

2. Joseph Smith as divine seer of an an ancient inspired pseudepigraphic work

• God inspires some random and otherwise unknown Jewish Egyptian (or is it Egyptian Jew?) to write a short pseudepigraphic text of the writings of Abraham with ancient ideas that seem to better reflect 19th century ideas
• Some random funerary texts happen their way into Kirtland
• Joseph believes, based on the images on the papyri and his belief that ancient texts come his way for him to translate (see also BofM and Kinderhook Plates), that either the papyri contain the writings of Abraham or at least point to some in some way
• God channels to Joseph Smith (such as with D&C 7) the pseudepigraphic writings of this random and unknown Egyptian/Jews when God could have just inspired Joseph to write his own (#1)

 

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

3. Joseph Smith as divine translator of an ancient inspired pseudepigraphic work

• God inspires some random Jewish Egyptian (or is it Egyptian Jew?) to write a short pseudepigraphic text of the writings of Abraham with ancient ideas that seem to better reflect 19th century ideas
• The author then cryptically encodes those writings into some rather generic funerary texts, attaches them to funerary texts, or some resource-savvy Egyptian uses the papyri the texts were written on to create completely unrelated generic funerary texts.
• God protects those funerary texts for nearly two thousand years, then inspires/controls multiple thieves and traders to get those texts out of the tombs, into Europe, across the Atlantic, and into some small town in Ohio, just so that Joseph could translate what God could have just revealed (#2) to him (such as D&C 7) or been inspire him to write his own of (#1).

(FWIW, I think its VERY safe to say that D&C 7 is Joseph's own pseudepigraphic writing.)

your 2 and 3 options spell out the problem if you ask me.  They are silly considerations, but that is what Joseph accompanied with the notion that the texts come from approx. 2000 years ago, rather than older than that.  The idea that Joseph wasn't translating, wasn't doing much more than telling a story that God revealed to him is not really staying true to Joseph.  It just means God deceived Joseph, thereby making Joseph come off ignorant.  

[the narrator]

Bob, methinks you're focusing too much on the trees here and missing the forest.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

It's actually not a problem at because the theoretical 1st century pseudepigraphic author also did not claim to be a pseudepigraphic author. While Joseph Smith--as a real person who gave the English text of the BofA--provides plenty of explanatory utility to understanding the BofM, the imaginary 1st century pseudepigraphic provides zero. They only exist as an apologetic construct for those demanding that the BofA be an actual translation of an ancient text while recognizing that the base text (minus all the anachronistic KJV and 19th century additions) can be no longer than a couple millenia old.

That is unfair to scholars who know very well that it is impossible to claim on the basis of secular data that the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Abraham, or the Book of Abraham can be dated earlier than late antiquity.  One cannot even show that there was a real Abraham ca. 2000 B.C.  All scholars are reduced to admitting only that we have numerous instances of pseudepigraphic writings, the contents of which demonstrate their provenance.

My point, again, is that the only reason apologists now are proposing the BofA to be a translation of a pseudepigraphic texts is because they want to maintain a claim of it being a translation of an ancient text. That is it.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There were no Jewish Egyptians.  The large Jewish community in Egypt, as with other foreign communities, was very separate and usually endogamous (the Jews of the Elephantine military colony did marry some Egyptian women).  Any pseudepigraphic creations normally involved tradents who took already extant legends and combined and edited them into a coherent story.  Many of the tropes and formulas are shared among these stories.  They are certainly not reflective of 19th century ideas.

I don't really care who this imaginary pseudepigraphic author was supposed to be. Also, there is nothing in the BofA that was not part of Joseph Smith's cultural contexts. The cosmology, theology, and narratives were all present in various theologies, sciences, and commentaries contemporary to Joseph Smith. Sure, some of them might parallel ancient ideas, but if they parallel ideas contemporary to Joseph Smith (or IMO better parallel them), then pointing to the ancient parallels as evidence of their antiquity is pretty weak.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have yet to see a demonstration that the BofA is based on any "generic funerary papyri."  That is a favorite claim, but carries with it some impossible consequences.

Whether the content on the papyri be generic or unique or even funerary texts at all, the point is that again the silliness of God going to great lengths to preserve pseudepigrapha supposedly attached, encoded, or recycled by some  unrelated Egyptian ritual text.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

• God protects those funerary texts for nearly two thousand years, then inspires/controls multiple thieves and traders to get those texts out of the tombs, into Europe, across the Atlantic, and into some small town in Ohio, just so that Joseph could translate what God could have just revealed (#2) to him (such as D&C 7) or been inspire him to write his own of (#1).

No more preposterous or absurd than the suggested mode through which the Book of Mormon plates and paraphernalia found their way to that hill near Manchester, NY, so that Joseph could find them.  Indeed, the same empty claims are made of the 19th century contents of the BofM as are made of the BofA.  No real discussion is ever allowed on those competing and mutually exclusive claims.

I agree. Though at least with the golden plates one could argue from the Book-of-Mormon-took-place-in-Mesoamerica approach that Moroni out of fear of being killed (or whatever reason) traveled thousands of miles before burying them near his dying home, that God protected that small spot from danger (perhaps slipping it away at times from potential thieves), and waiting for the right person to come around at the right time to be led to it, and that contrary to Joseph's own grande self-understanding of his place in the grande cosmic narrative, he was actually just one of many who could have been called to that purpose, him just being the right person at the right time. Or one from the Heartland approach could do the same. Or one could say that the BofA as pseudepigrapha has more to say about the BofM (which is the camp I'm in).

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The thing about D&C 7 is that it contains no data which could possibly be evaluated by secular means to test its ultimate claims.  It can only be taken as authentic on faith.  That leaves it completely outside the realm of scholarly discussion of the BofA.

That is an odd claim. It has 250 or so words in it.

Edited March 29, 2019 by the narrator

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

It's actually not a problem at because the theoretical 1st century pseudepigraphic author also did not claim to be a pseudepigraphic author.

We don't know that, if there were such.  We dont' know that pseduepigraphic authors of various parts of the Bible did not claim to be such either.  

My point is that the imaginary person has made no claims at all

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's unreasonable to suggest the result is scripture when Joseph said that it was from an earlier time.  

I think it's quite reasonable. Please explain your logic of how it not being ancient prevents it from being scripture.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why make up stories, or let someone do so, why pretend that the stories themselves carry any more meaning or purpose than so many hosts of other stories?  Why scripture at all?  

Yes. These are the questions that people need to be asking. Too often these debates begin with certain assumptions about what scripture is before questioning if those assumptions are correct. James Faulconer has a excellent discussion of this here. (I think the free sample has most of his chapter in it.)

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It just means God deceived Joseph, thereby making Joseph come off ignorant.

Nah. It just means that divine communication and scripture are far more complicated than many want to naively believe.