Something truly remarkable happened in the Church’s new publication of the standard works, and so far, not too many people have seemed to notice. This very dramatic modification to the Church’s Pearl of Great Price is in my opinion truly a “game-changer.” The 1981 introduction to the Book of Abraham features the following statement:
“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”
And now, the new 2013 version of the text contains the following introduction:
“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”
Look carefully at what this new assertion suggests (because I would submit, it changes everything!!). The Book of Abraham is identified as an inspired translation of the “writings of Abraham,” not a translation of “Egyptian papyri” that contain the writings of Abraham. And with this single statement, the Church has successfully thrown out a plethora of poorly made apologetic videos and articles trying desperately to prove that somehow, the Book of Abraham literally appeared on the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith held in his possession.
Now to be fair, the new introduction does not state that the Book of Abraham was not on the scrolls, but make no mistake about it, this new introduction allows for the possibility that the Book of Abraham was never on any of the Egyptian documents Joseph Smith possessed. This is an incredible step forward that may prove the end of Book of Abraham apologetics (at least in the classical sense)!
Produced in 1835 by the prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham tells the story of the biblical patriarch’s travels from the city of UR in Mesopotamia to Canaan and down into Egypt. Joseph Smith created the scriptural text as a result of trying to interpret (“translate”) Egyptian papyri scrolls that early Church leaders purchased from a traveling Mummy exhibition in Kirtland, Ohio. The story is well-known.
The papyri owned by the prophet were all thought to have been lost in 1871 during the Great Chicago fire. Yet in 1966, several fragments from the collection were rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and subsequently donated to the LDS Church. Since their rediscovery, these fragments have all been translated and shown to have no connection whatsoever to the LDS Book of Abraham. Additionally, the Book of Abraham features three facsimiles of vignettes from the papyri together with Joseph Smith’s interpretations. The prophet’s interpretation of these images and their accompanying Egyptian hieroglyphics do not reflect the way in which modern Egyptologists understand these representations. And unfortunately, these facts have contributed to one of the most common intellectual reasons that practicing Mormons abandon their faith. And classical LDS apologetics have done little to help solve the issue.
Unfortunately, in their well-intended efforts to defend the scriptural and therefore inspired authenticity of the Book of Abraham, Mormon apologists have for the most part created much more trouble than is necessary for the Book of Abraham by presenting the public with inaccurate arguments and illogical perspectives. Even though these efforts have no doubt been well intended, it is without question a fact that in the end, bad apologetics do far more harm than good.
As both a serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East, and a believing Latter-day Saint who accepts the Book of Abraham as scripture, I strongly maintain that these highly problematic, and to be quite frank, embarrassing apologetic videos and articles that are so easily shown to be inaccurate arguments really need to cease. I would submit that with this new introduction, the Church appears to have opened up the door for a much more sophisticated and accurate understanding of the Book of Abraham.
Egyptology has nothing to tell us whatsoever about the Book of Abraham. As a science, Egyptology is really entirely irrelevant. However, since the Book of Abraham recounts part of the life story of the biblical patriarch and features a revised version of the opening chapters of Genesis, biblical scholarship has much to offer on this fascinating subject.
The conclusion to the Book of Abraham contains an alternate version of Genesis 1-2:20. This is significant because biblical scholars universally recognize these two chapters in Genesis as originally two separate sources. The mainstream scholarly position is that Genesis 1-2:4a is a documentary source written by a Priestly author long after the time period of Abraham and the second creation story is an earlier documentary source written by an author that scholars refer to by the letter “J,” since this source tends to use the divine name “Jehovah” as a proper noun (translated as LORD in the KJV).
Currently, outside of this mainstream position held by the vast majority of North American and Israeli scholars, there exists a minor school of thought amongst some European scholars that the second source (Gen 2) is not technically a “documentary” source, but instead a fragment or supplement. But either way, scholars are convinced that these two chapters derive from two separate sources long after the biblical patriarch (the second one even seems to react and to some extent even correct the earlier creation story).
While reading the opening chapters of the Bible, have you ever stopped and asked yourself the question, “What’s going on here; it seems as if there are two different stories about creation?!” The creation story in Genesis 1 appears neatly organized into three days of preparing followed by three days of developing, with each day ending with a formulaic expression: “and there was X.” By the seventh day, all created things exist in their proper sphere, and so, God rests.
And then, quite dramatically, everything changes! To quote one biblical scholar, “all of a sudden it is as if everything created no longer exists.”[1] We start all over again, but this time, the sequence of events is dramatically altered. Genesis 1:26-27 states that man and woman were created together on the sixth day, after the animals. The story in Genesis 2, however, states that God created man on the first day, then God created the animals, and finally, he created the woman. So what is going on here?!
The Bible opens with two different stories about creation. In some ways, they duplicate each other, telling a story concerning the creation of animals, plants, and man, yet on other issues, they clearly contradict one another. The two stories describe the same events, but they place the actions in an entirely different sequence.
Go back and see! In Genesis 1, God creates plants, then animals, then finally, man and woman at the same time. In Genesis 2, God creates man, plants, animals, and finally woman.
And that’s not all, interestingly, the creation story in Genesis 1-2:4a uses the divine name Elohim (translated “God” in the KJV), and the story of creation in Genesis 2:4b-3 uses the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah (translated as LORD in the KJV). The two stories also differ in the way in which God/the LORD creates. In the story found in Genesis 1, God creates by simply speaking a command, and in Genesis 2, the LORD creates by physically working with the ground.
These biblical sources derive from two separate authors (one reacting to the other) that were compossed long after the time period of Abraham, and yet they both appear as a single revised strory in the BofA produced by the prophet Joseph Smith.
This means that if the Book of Abraham actually appeared somewhere on the Egyptian papyri that Joseph possessed, that the book would have been written by a Hellenized Jewish author living presumably in Egypt who revised the Book of Genesis to create a piece of literature scholars refer to as pseudepigraphon (singular of pseudeipigrapha).
Please note; if the BofA literally appeared on the Egyptian scrolls Joseph possessed it would be a book written by a later Jewish author who falsely attributed the text to the biblical patriarch. This would place the BofA in the same category as later Jewish texts falsely attributed to biblical figures in the past, including the books of Enoch, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and even the Apocalypse of Abraham (a text probably written by a Jewish author around 70-150 AD).
Granted, if the book was simply a later Jewish pseudepigraphic text this would make sense of the book’s earliest scriptural introduction. Unlike the current change, up until 1878, the Book of Abraham was originally published with the following introduction:
“Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs 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.”[1]
So at first, this perspective might seem like an interesting way for a Latter-day Saint to understand the BofA. However, ultimately, I suspect that this interpretation for most Latter-day Saints will prove unsatisfactory for at least two reasons.
- The Book of Abraham actually contains theological views regarding the Divine Council and the gods that reflect earlier Israelite theological perspectives rather than later Jewish conceptions. It would be very hard to date this text conceptually to a later Hellenized Jewish author at a time period in which most religious Jews had embraced a type of radical monotheism. But the second is even more significant!
- If the BofA is simply a pseudepigraphic text written by a later Jewish author in the same way that a Jewish scribe produced the pseudepigraphic books of Jubilees, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Ascension of Isaiah, or even the Apocalypse of Abraham, why should a Latter-day Saint assume that the BofA is any more (or any less for that matter) inspired than these sources?
You see, in light of what we know about the development of the Book of Genesis, the only way that the Book of Abraham could have appeared on one of the late Ptolemaic or early Roman Period scrolls that Joseph possessed is if the text had been written by a late unknown Jewish author in the same way that other pseudepigaphic texts from the time period were written!
I would submit that even if it was correct, that this very questionable theory would make the BofA difficult for most Latter-day Saints to accept as inspired scripture. And this is huge! In other words, even if all of the apologetic arguments for missing scrolls, and the original length of the papyri were correct, we would still be left with nothing more than a pseudepigraphic Book of Abraham equivalent to the pseudepigraphic Apocalypse of Abraham (70-150 AD).
So why not just put an end to the apologetic wars and accept the offer that the new scriptural heading is presenting?!! From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the BofA is “an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham,” not “a translation from some Egyptian papyri containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”
The question, of course, is how can a Latter-day Saint interpret the concept of “the writings of Abraham” (especially in light of biblical scholarship)? Here’s a hint, neither Egyptology, nor classical apologetic arguments are going to help us. But there is help. I promise. And I believe that it does put an end to the apologetic war. A correct understanding of the BofA places the text’s inspired scriptural validity beyond the realm of missing scrolls and complicated mathematical equations.
“You see, in light of what we know about the development of the Book of Genesis, the only way that the Book of Abraham could have appeared on one of the late Ptolemaic or early Roman Period scrolls that Joseph possessed is if the text had been written by a late unknown Jewish author in the same way that other pseudepigaphic texts from the time period were written!
I would submit that even if it was correct, that this very questionable theory would make the BofA difficult for most Latter-day Saints to accept as inspired scripture. And this is huge! In other words, even if all of the apologetic arguments for missing scrolls, and the original length of the papyri were correct, we would still be left with nothing more than a pseudepigraphic Book of Abraham equivalent to the pseudepigraphic Apocalypse of Abraham (70-150 AD).”
Not if an earlier text was redacted later on. There are simply too many things in the book that fit better with a Ptolemaic/Roman era point of view. I’ve been conducting extensive research into what I consider the text’s “ancient voice,” and things like Kevin Barney’s Jred theory, and Blake Ostler’s Abraham as Osiris only scratch the surface of what is a fascinating array of concerns revolving around the figure of Abraham, cosmogony, angeleology, creation, and, yes, the divine.
Allen, are you suggesting that there existed an earlier BofA into which a later Jewish author inserted Genesis 1-2?
David, you were certainly excited while writing some of this!
I don’t think that the earliest text is recoverable. At some point the text acquired the outlines of the Genesis account. My point is more about the BoA as a whole, but I am open to reconsidering my position, so lam looking forward to part 2.
Nice discussion, David. There’s a further discussion to be had about the term “inspired translation.” Normally, modifying the term “translation” to become “inspired translation” would be strengthening the process referred to. For example, if an LDS leader referred to a decision or report that emerged from the work of a committee as an “inspired decision” as opposed to merely a “decision,” the implication would be the inspired decision was better: all that a regular decision might have offered, plus some extra divine inspiration.
But the term “inspired translation” as used in the new introduction does not follow this simple logic. It is subtle, even misleading. What it seems to actually refer to is “inspired non-translation.” This is in line with almost two centuries of LDS abuse of the term “translation.”
“… Abraham, cosmology, angelology, creation, and, yes, the divine”. Allen, the welter of textual data concerning Abraham and his connection to Egypt are all manifestly late, much later than the Hebrew Bible, and are Pseudepigraphic writings that *start from* the Biblical text and, like most apologists do, try to connect the Patriarch to what is known about Egypt. The Bible itself only puts Abraham in Egypt to anticipate the later Exodus story.
The approach embraced in this post is the only ultimately fruitful one.
Great post, David! I look forward to part two.
I’m delighted by the heading change. I’ve long thought that we should throw out the word “translation” when referring to Mormon scriptures generally. “Inspired interpretation” or “inspired rendering” seem far better descriptors.
Thanks David. I agree with the basic point of your post that the Doc Hypothesis severely complicates any attempt to read the BofA as a translation of ancient Egyptian papyri.
Though I’m interested to see how you will answer the question, “how can a Latter-day Saint interpret the concept of “the writings of Abraham” (especially in light of biblical scholarship)?”
Recent biblical scholarship points, persuasively in my view, to understanding Abraham in the Pentateuch/Torah as a literary character with little basis in actual history (because of the temporal distance separating the construction of the Pentateuchal narrative from the time when Abraham would have theoretically lived [multiple centuries, perhaps a millennium], various literary aspects of the presentation of Abraham’s travels, such as his foreshadowing of the Israelite bondage in Egypt, disagreements among the sources about who Abraham was, where he came from, where he lived in Canaan, the absence of any reference to elements of the Abraham story in other early biblical texts, and so on).
David,
Thanks for this. I share your feelings of embarrassment. So I think we are mainly on the same page.
A couple of questions (that you may be planning to answer already in part 2 and so forth):
Do you see there being some relationship between the papyri and the Book of Abraham, and if so, how do you understand it? Are we talking about Semitic adaption in the Ptolemaic/Roman period (by a Jewish pseudepigrapher), or about Mormon adaption by JS and others? … Or are you suggesting that there is no relationship at all, or that we take this opportunity to deny that there is one?
Any way, are you saying that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text?
If you want the apologetic wars to stop, I’m not sure that it will happen so long as the text is said to be ancient, whatever might be said about the relationship or no relationship to the papyri.
And of course (most/many of?) those who don’t want the apologetic wars to stop are certain that the church will disappear if the Book of Abraham isn’t said to be ancient. Quod EST demonstrandum, and all that.
Shamelessly self-promoting link:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/03/adjustment-to-the-book-of-abraham-in-the-new-edition-of-the-scriptures/
When I saw that and then read your paper, I reached for my copy of When Prophecy Fails. Mormons have failed to prove that papyri existing had anything to do with Abraham. Then some present a theory that it is still lost.(Gee). Then along come Cook and Smith and present an argument against Gee’s wraps idea.The paradigm has shifted.
And it is interesting that at least one person on the FAIR blog sees the change more as a new beginning than an end:
“This has significant implications for defenders of the Book of Abraham. Many defenders can now await further developments on the source front, and turn to arguments that the myriad things Joseph Smith correctly produced that were unknown at the time of the production of the Book of Abraham, but which have subsequently been demonstrated as being consistent with ancient traditions, indicate that Joseph clearly had access to some source that was authentic. Such evidences give credence to the Book of Abraham as authentically ancient.”
http://www.fairblog.org/2013/03/05/subtle-and-significant-our-new-2013-edition-of-the-scriptures-address-controversies/
And then this comes along: http://www.fairblog.org/2013/03/06/reverend-spalding-strikes-again-a-response-to-internet-criticism-of-kerry-muhlesteins-book-of-abraham-videos/
David: Thanks for this post — it hits the issues dead on. I have to admit that I love the BofA and its teachings about the council of gods, eternal intelligences and pre-mortal life. I think that there are several possibilities still open:
1. The papryri spurred Joseph Smith to think about Abraham and his relation to the Egyptians and he received a revelation of the Book of Abraham as further information about that relation.
2. There was in fact a Book of Abraham written by Abraham anciently that influenced Egyptian iconography that reflected Abraham’s experiences and revelations for thousands of years and Joseph Smith restored the meaning through iconographic interpretation of the facsimilies.
3. There was an author(s) in late second-temple Judaism (150 B.C. to 100 A.D.) who received a true revelation of the same visions shown to Abraham, and this later Jewish author reduced it to writing and used the Egyptian iconography and figures to illustrate his vision, and the same vision/revelation was later given to Joseph Smith as he reviewed the Egyptian papryrii. The Egyptian facsimiles (and not the demotic writing itself) are the source of spurring the revelation for both. The revelation to Joseph Smith is based on both the original vision to Abraham and the illustrative explanation given to the late Jewish author. Joseph Smith couched the revelation in terms of his understanding, world view and reading of the KJV.
I tend to favor explanation #3 because: (a) there is evidence to support it such as similar usage of Egyptian iconography in the pseudepigraphic works of the Apocalype of Abbraham and the Testament of Abraham from the same period as the payrii; (b) it better accounts more of the relevant evidence by at least providing some explanation for the relationship Joseph Smith made of the facsimiles, and (c) it also makes sense of the ancient Near Eastern world view from Abraham’s pre-monarchic time of the council of gods and extra-biblical knowledge of Abraham source; and (d) it answers your question regarding “why be considered any more inspired than the pseudepigraphic sources?” If the pesudepigraphic sources were themselves inspired or revelations of Abraham’s visions (as they purport to be) then this point is not telling against accepting the Book of Abraham.
All three methods of explanation could fall under “inspired translation.” I am open to all three possibilities though I favor the third. I also cannot get over the fact that if I look more carefully, Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles team with interesting connections to the Egyptian sources that I take to be much more than mere coincidence.
I also agree with RT that given the lack of historical sources there is no way to reliably get back to the “historical Abraham”. RT suggests that he may be merely a literary figure — but I don’t believe such a view is either necessary or supported by most scholars based on the evidence (precisely because there could not be any evidence for such a view).
I could be wrong about all of this, but that is how I presently see it.
Oh and I should add that I don’t think that “radical monotheism” is an accurate explanation of all but a very few Jewish writers during the late second temple period from which the papryii derive.
Would it not be better to say: A story about Abraham, written by Joseph Smith after purchasing some inspiring Egyptian papyri?
Or how about: a record of Abraham full of anachronisms and cosmological absurdities claimed to be translated via divine inspiration by Joseph Smith from common Egyptian burial texts as no one at the time and place could show otherwise?
In line with the content of the FAIR blogger quote in comment 11, I would suggest (or request) that the question of ancient affinities and other connections be addressed in your blog posts. Besides the arguments over the length of the scrolls, what is missing, etc., scholars like Muhlestein and Gee have brought up other important points regarding Egyptian interest in Abraham, Abraham = Osiris, crossover between Egyptian and Jewish literature, and so forth. In this context, it doesn’t seem so impossible to be able to find a native Egyptian text which could double as a story about Abraham or facsimiles generally used in Osiris literature that are being applied to Abraham. Is all of this irrelevant? If you think so, why?
Blake,
Your willingness to consider various possibilities here is representative of what I think is the basic ideal solution to a lot of these recurring issues.
Now in the case of #1, would you consider the possibility still open even if there were no ancient text underlying the revelation?
I too love the BofA and its teachings about the council of gods, eternal intelligences and pre-mortal life.
Do you think it would be game-over to say that these are inspired teachings, sermons, midrashim, homilies, or otherwise creative and (strong) readings of the Bible (readings in the sense of re-writings)?
What ‘inspired’ means could be left to each to decide. And any who may so desire could understand the attempts to translate from Egyptian papyri to be sincere but mistaken.
To be clear, this would just be one of multiple possibilities and hardly the new orthodoxy. I am not suggesting that ancientness be repudiated or that in the next edition of the scriptures the Abrahamic frame story (which is the bulk of the text) be dropped and the remainder be rephrased in the voice of JS.
g. wesley: Sure, I think that the possibilities you offer are among the options of a faithful view of the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham could be revelation pure and simple inspired by Joseph’s encounter with the papyrii and a creative reading of the KJV. I think that is essentially what option #1 that I outlined in # 13 suggests.
At present I think that the view that there was an ancient text of some sort is suggested by how uncannily it reflects the Ugaritic and pre-monarchic Israelite views of the council of gods that would have been the dominant view during any time Abraham could have lived. However, it is also influenced by post-exilic terms like the “Son of Man” and rider on the clouds vision in the Book of Daniel. The Book of Abraham reflects an incredible knack for weaving together various throne-visions of the council of gods and using the precise formulaic language to designate such literary conventions in Israelite and Jewish literature. The Book of Abraham is so pregnant with meaning in a number of contexts that I tend to think it inspires us to explore all of them.
David L.,
That sounds like a reasonable request to me. For my part, and whatever it may be worth, these days I care more about there being room for a variety of opinions, including my provisional ones, than I care about arguing against the opinions of others.
It’s the insistence that a certain opinion has to be held–or else–that I think puts several folks off.
Thanks, Blake. That is nice to hear.
I will have to give some more consideration to the items you list.
Blake:
“RT suggests that he may be merely a literary figure — but I don’t believe such a view is either necessary or supported by most scholars based on the evidence (precisely because there could not be any evidence for such a view).
I could be wrong about all of this, but that is how I presently see it.”
Sorry, Blake, but yes you are wrong about all this. While Abraham is not purely literary–he likely has ancient roots in the ancestor veneration of pre-exilic Israel, the story about the patriarch found in the Pentateuch is literary fiction. This understanding has become very well accepted among critical scholars, as so many factors point in this direction (See John Van Seters, Thomas Thompson, Marc Brettler, Stavrakopoulou). Scholars who still try to defend a historical Abraham along biblical lines are for the most part religiously conservative (such as Kitchen).
G. Wesley,
I understand the concern regarding insistence on a single “orthodox” opinion, and I do not believe that such a position is necessary, by any means.
I, personally, would be happy to entertain some of Blake’s options or any others that I felt reflected what I understand the Book of Abraham to be. I am also willing to accept the possibility that I simply do not understand what the Book of Abraham really is and how it was produced (beyond the facts that there were Egyptian papyri involved and that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired).
From my own research and interests I do believe, as Blake expressed, that there are some amazing parallels with ancient literature and culture that I think should be considered in any good analysis of the book.
Blake,
I tend to agree with you that your option #3 is probably the best way to have the Book of Abraham be both ancient and inspired. In fact, I even think that the plural gods of chapter 3 may be more at home in first-century Judaism than David allows. The exact words of 3:24 are, “And there stood one among them that was like unto God.” The title “Standing Ones” is a divine title from the Hellenistic period. It may have had Platonic overtones: the divine beings “stand” in the sense of standing still—being absent motion. It also seems to have served as a messianic title in Samaritan circles. According to early Christian writings, Simon Magus claimed to be the “Standing One.” He may have been claiming to be a reincarnation of Moses, named in the Samaritan Targumim as the only mortal ever to have “stood” beside God (Deut. 5:31). For example, the Hymn of Marqah used the term to refer to both the members of the divine assembly and to Moses as a sort of deified mortal mediator. So in short, I think there may be more to support a reading of the text as a first-century pseudepigraphon than David allows.
This does, however, still leave a number of problems to be resolved. For one thing, the first-person voice of the text leaves us with a bit of an ethical problem. If this text was produced not by Abraham, but by a first-century writer—even one with some inspired knowledge of Abraham’s life—then what are we to make of the first-person voice of the text? I know some scholars have argued that pseudepigraphal writing didn’t carry the stigma in the first century that it does today, but this strikes me as a specious argument with little evidence to support it. The Church Fathers, after all, took great care to sort authentic texts from inauthentic ones, and they denounced texts they considered fraudulent in no uncertain terms.
There’s also the other problem, which is the text’s relationship to Joseph Smith’s papyrus. We have not only the problematic explanations of the Facsimiles, including demonstrably inaccurate translations of Facsimile 3′s labels, but also a narrative that makes direct reference to and seems deliberately modeled upon Facsimile 1. The missing papyrus theory seems inadequate both because the nineteenth-century sources don’t support it and because of its failure to account for the mistranslation of the Facsimile 3 labels. So even if we regard the Book of Abraham as a late pseudepigraphon, we still seem to need some sort of catalyst or unconventional translation theory to explain how the text came to Joseph Smith. Which, at the end of the day, still leaves us with quite a theological mess.
Peace,
-Chris
Chris: I think that your points are well-taken but can be mitigated. The “standing” motif fits both Ugaritic models and the first century. For “standing” as a designation of the council of gods in Ugaritic and pre-monarchic Israelite sources, see here: http://www.academia.edu/395686/An_Exegetical_Reading_of_Psalm_82
and espcially here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118587298/Klee-THe-heavenly-council-type-scene
I think that the first-person voice is not a problem for this reason: the revelation received by both the first-century writer and Joseph Smith is a revelation of what was originally written by Abraham. So it is not merely a late pseudepigraphon (or an early one depending on where you put the cut-off); it is also reflective of what Abraham actually said.
What the Church Fathers thought of pseudepigraphic writings is not relevant because: (1) they are several centuries removed from the First Century; (2) they did not know most of the Jewish pseudepigrapha or even consider them (such as the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham); and (3) they could be wrong.
The references to the facsimiles is indeed puzzling; but can be explained as making the same kinds of associations as the first-century writer such as we see in the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham where Osiris is equated with Abraham, the Horus falcon with angels and canopic jars with 4 corners of the world (same for the Egyptian meaning for the last one). The parallels between the Apocalypse and Testament and the book of Abraham in several passages is also very suggestive (though I don’t think suggestive of direct dependence on an English translation of these documents).
As for the “false” designations of figures in Fac. #3, I think that if we see the Egyptian gods like Isis as stand-ins for the post-mortem-initiates for whom these documents were created (as they were actually used in Egyptian culture), then the name-designations become much more plausible. After all, Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian. If he knew anything at all about the facsimiles, it had to be through revelation.
David L.,
Thanks. Also good to hear.
Chris,
That is generous of you to point to the parallels involving ‘standing.’ For me, the catch is that standing is a more or less universally human thing, so it seems pretty hard to know what to make of the parallels.
About the church fathers and theories of innocent pseudepigraphy, I myself am a bit wary of such theories to the extent that they tend to be driven by needs of NT scholars to salvage the inspiration and canonicity of, say, 2 Peter, after they have become convinced that it was not written by its purported author — which needs, I think, are not unlike those that some LDS folks might have vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham.
But I think there is more than a little evidence to support such theories (surprise, surprise). The problem I see with them is how selectively they are applied. It’s is if it is OK for an NT text to be an inspired pseudepigraphon, but outside the traditional biblical canon created in large part by the church fathers, any texts that were not written by their purported authors must be inauthentic, fraudulent, etc.
Blake,
Interesting about the Ugaritic “standing” motif. Thanks for the tip. I’m much more familiar with Hellenistic religion than earlier periods.
Concerning your suggestion that “the revelation received by both the first-century writer and Joseph Smith is a revelation of what was originally written by Abraham,” this appears to almost entirely negate the explanatory power of placing the text in the first century. How, for instance, would we then explain the borrowing from Genesis’s late creation accounts?
Concerning Facsimile 3, the problem isn’t just the misidentification of figures, but the mistranslation of the hieratic labels. It’s easy to argue that a Jewish redactor might have changed the meaning of pictures or that figures in an illustration could represent both characters and the actors playing them; it’s much harder to argue the same about the text. (The same goes for Joseph’s mistranslation of the supposed “Katumin epitaph,” the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts, and the characters in the Alphabet and Grammar; but of course the Facsimile 3 labels are the least ambiguous case because both characters and translation are right there in the canonized scriptures for all to see.)
Personally I’m unimpressed by the supposed parallels to the Apocalpyse and Testament of Abraham. For the most part they don’t seem substantive beyond these texts being similar in intent and sharing dependence on the Bible and the traditions reported in Josephus. They’re similar enough that I can appreciate why one might want to place the Book of Abraham in the same genre and time period as these texts, but I don’t see signs of any direct dependence, via English translations or otherwise.
gwesley,
Yes, “standing” could certainly have nothing to do with the Hellenistic divine title. In fact, I personally don’t believe it does. My main point in sharing this as a possible parallel was to highlight that Hellenistic Judaism was less radically monotheistic, and thus clashes less with the theology of the Book of Abraham, than David represented in his post. Hellenistic Jews allowed for the existence of a divine council and sometimes used the word “gods” in reference to both this council and deified humans. You could certainly highlight some points of difference, but Hellenistic Judaism was so diverse that the Book of Abraham could belong to that context even if it contained totally unprecedented and seemingly un-Jewish theological claims.
Christopher: I can see why you would conclude that having a double revelation would negate the explanatory power of placing the text solely in the first century, but I am suggesting that it is not placed only in the first century. It is also reflective of a more ancient revelation to Abraham — consciously so in the case of the writers of the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham — and undeniably so in the case of the Book of Abraham. This more ancient relation cannot be proven by any first century documents alone . . . and we don’t have access to documents old enough to know for sure about Abraham. But the first century documents that rely on Egyptian iconography in a way suggestive of the BofA explicitly connect their visions to the patriarch Abraham. That is why I cite evidence indicative of Ugaritic texts and pre-monarchic Israel as well as first century sources.
However, it is also a text mediated to us through Joseph Smith. It clearly reflects a knowledge of the KJV as a base text for interpretation. Thus, the BofA reflects the post-exilic Genesis accounts. These same accounts are reflected in the Apocalypse of Abraham.
I can understand why you do not see the parallels between the Apoc. and Test. of Abraham as convincing as I do given your background assumptions. However, contrary to what you assert it is demonstrable that the parallels are not dependent on common reliance on the Bible — that is what makes them more compelling in my view.
With respect to “mistranslations” of text, I don’t see any translations of texts — I see references to stock characters represented by deities. What is interesting is that a mere lotus flower signifies Abraham in Egypt in fac.s #3. Yet it is Abraham (Osiris) once again discussing astronomy in the king’s court. Once again Abraham is equated with Osiris — and a lotus flower symbolically. The Pharaoh, the prince of Pharaoh and a the chief waiter could easily be represented by the divine figures whose names are represented — as they sometimes in fact were. It is a stylized scene with gods standing in for the court members as is represented by documents such as fac. #3.
However, once again, I could be wrong about all of this. That is how it appears to me right now.
I’ve looked pretty closely at the parallels of the BoA to the Testament and Apocalypse, so it isn’t just because of personal bias that I say that several of the most persuasive ones demonstrably are explainable by dependence on the Bible and Josephus. I can point you to chapter and verse for things such as Terah’s idolatry, the persecution of Abraham for his rejection of idols, Abraham’s practice of evangelism, Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians, etc. Abraham’s vision of creation/pre-existence is the major exception, but the visions are not as similar as some have represented, and we’re also talking about two cosmological texts which are both influenced by a shared Hellenistic tradition, so I don’t too much should be made of that particular parallel.
Concerning adding mediation by Joseph Smith as an additional explanatory layer, I’m not even sure what to say about that. At some point the explanatory model becomes so ungainly that one doesn’t know what to do except to put the poor monstrosity out of its misery with a good, clean swipe of Occam’s Razor.
Concerning mistranslations of text, see Facs 3 Explanation verses 2, 4, and 5:
“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. … Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. … Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.”
Christopher: I dispute that Terah’s idolatry, Abraham’s persecution (and let’s not forget the attempted sacrifice), and especially the sacrifice of children practiced by Pharaoh and, as you state, the vision of the pre-mortal council of gods (that is a biggy isn’t it), Abraham’s sacrifices as a means of vision (and many more that you are undoubtedly aware of but did not mention) in the BofA are based on the biblical texts. I’ve looked very carefully as well. So I am open to having you show me what you have in mind as support.
Really, how could it possibly be the case that Joseph Smith’s involvement with the BofA text could be called into question by Ockham’s razor? It is a part of the actual evidence of what any parsimonious theory of the book has to account for, not an extra epicycle. His involvement is, after all, quite indisputable. Remember what the razor cuts through is the most parsimonious explanation of all of the evidence that must be accounted for — not the simplest explanation tout court. I suggest that leaving Joseph out of the picture of explanation would not even begin to be a plausible theory.
Yes, I was already aware of the statements regarding figures 2, 4 and 5 of fac. #3. The name of king pharaoh, the prince and the chief waiter just is the name of the god that appears above his head or is “represented by the characters above his hand” as figured in these texts. That is how they were used after all for initiates. The god is the person’s name.
“At some point the explanatory model becomes so ungainly that one doesn’t know what to do except to put the poor monstrosity out of its misery with a good, clean swipe of Occam’s Razor.”
Agreed. If the someone could accept the BofA being the inspired pseudopigraphic writings of a 1st century Helenized Jew, couldn’t we just cut out the middle-man and accept the BofA as being the inspired pseudopigraphic writings of a 19th century American prophet?
Blake,
Terah’s idolatry is found in Joshua 24:2 and can also be inferred from Josephus.
Abraham’s persecution for rejecting idols is mentioned in Antiquities, chapter 7: “when the Chaldeans, and other people of Mesopotamia, raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country.”
The “sacrifice” of Abraham is not, IMO, a true parallel. It’s quite dissimilar to the legend of Nimrod’s attempt to execute Abraham via a fiery furnace (which is apparently derivative of Daniel), and it’s also easily explained as an interpretation of Facsimile 1. Note also that the persecution/attempted execution of Abraham isn’t mentioned in either Testament or Apocalypse, but only in later texts.
The “sacrifice of children” parallel is a bit of a stretch. In the Apocalypse Abraham sees a vision of a man sacrificing young boys to an idol of jealousy, and Abraham is told that this symbolizes the future persecution of the elect and desecration of the Temple by those predestined for hell. This is a far cry from the Book of Abraham’s priest of Pharaoh actually sacrificing virgins on a Chaldean altar.
As for the supposed “vision of the pre-mortal council of Gods,” you’re mistaken. Nibley mistook the Apocalypse of Abraham’s term “counsel” (as in “divine plan”) for the Mormon term “council” (as in “divine group”). The “divine World-Counsel” Abraham sees in the Apocalypse is actually the divine “Idea” of the world, of which—in the Apocalypse’s semi-Platonic cosmology—the real world is a reflection or shadow. The “World-Counsel” Abraham sees in the Apocalypse is essentially an ideal version of world history, and he sees the predestined course of history play out before his eyes. The World-Counsel is populated with people, so you could certainly draw a parallel to the Book of Abraham’s pre-mortal spirits. However, this isn’t really the same thing, and it’s certainly not Nibley’s “council of Gods.”
(Concerning my appeal to Josephus, note that Oliver quoted Josephus in relation to the papyri in December 1835, so we know Joseph and/or his scribes were reading it in conjunction with the Egpytian project. The Alphabet and Grammar also shows clear dependence on Josephus as I demonstrated in a JWHAJ article a few years back.)
As for Ockham’s Razor, the problem isn’t the inclusion of Joseph in the model. The problem is that your model invokes so many levels of redaction and explanation that it starts to sound like shotgun-apologetics. If we’re going to posit that it was Joseph who put in the redacted creation narrative (presumably among other things), then what on earth do we need a first-century pseudepigrapher for?
Concerning your explanation of the mistranslations of the labels, all I can do is shake my head. After Joseph mistranslated the Katumin epitaph, shouldn’t we just conclude that what’s happening in Facsimile is the same thing rather than positing some weird, oblique double-meaning? “Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.” That seems pretty straightforward to me, and doesn’t seem to leave much room for the hieratic label to actually be the name of some character the Prince of Pharaoh was playing in a sacred drama.
There is in one of the versions of the “book of jasher” (I would have to dig around for my copy) a story of Abraham destroying the idols of his father, fleeing from the punishment for destroying said idols and many other similar notions as the BOA. Could there not be a common pigriphical source of stories pre dating both found in the Jewish communities in America at the time?
The version I am referring to is the Samuel Moses translation in English first published in 1840 and available in Hebrew as early as 1625. So it seems there are elements of the story which could have been easily available in oral form and possibly in written.
The transformation from Abraham thrown into the furnace to sacrificed on the bed/alter could have been simply inspired by that was the material Joseph had to work with.
Christopher: Thanks for taking the time to address this seriously. Let me see if I can provide some response, recognizing that given where you are coming from no such explanations can have any explanatory power because the prior probability of Joseph receiving revelation approaches zero for you.
I’ll give you that Josh. 24:2 mentions that Terah worshiped idols; what it does not mention is child sacrifice to those idols as in the Apoc.Abr. and in BofA 1:7. It does not mention that Abraham’s life was placed in danger because he opposed Terah as it does in both Apoc.Abr and BofA.
Second, what BofA says is not sacrifice of virgins (you missed this one badly) but “sacrifice of children . . . sacrifice of men, women and children.” BofA 1:7-8.
Josephus says nothing about persecuting Abraham for rejecting idolatry, but merely that they were upset with him. That is very different. So the parallel with the Apoc.Abr. regarding sacrifices of children is pretty darn remarkable in my view. The supposed parallels with Josephus are so weak as to not merit mentioning. The Apoc.Abr. like the BofA makes a big deal about Terah’s idolatry and how upset it made him with Abraham. It also illustrates how Abraham escaped being slain together with Terah for it — so I think you overlooked that as well. Apoc.Abr. 1-8 in Box.
I also think it is significant that “Jehovah” reveals himself by name to Abraham (especially in light of the fact that the Bible says God was not known by that name) and it is Jaoel who is the angel/revelator in Apoc.Abr..
I also think that you minimize the parallel with “the divine world council/counsel” in Apoc.Abr. The Slavonic terms used is svetu or suvetu, which Rubinkiewicz (the translator for the OTP p. 700 n. 22) says it means “council, counsel” and refers to the act of God’s taking counsel with others — in this case the heavenly beings which include Jaoel. As you recognize, it is particularly striking because it also provides a vision of “those who existed before you and after you . . . these on the right I have prepared to be born of you to be called my people.” (ch. 22) Abraham’s vision of the pre-earth plan, the council of gods and election of pre-mortal spirits is pretty impressive in light of the BofA in my view. I think that you miss this one pretty widely as well.
I invoke the levels of redaction because I believe that they are indicated by the texts. I think that they are required to account for what we know of the evidence. My proposal pales in comparison to levels of redaction for well established texts like the Pentateuch, the gospel of John and even the various recensions of many of the pseudepigraphic texts (the Test.Abr. is one such text). You might not like evidence which requires a more complicated explanation to account for the various levels or strata of production, but that is just the way many texts actually come to us.
I can see why you might think that the issue related to references to titles like Pharoah, the Prince of Pharaoh and Shulem are more easily explained by the straightforward “if that isn’t what the text above his hand says, it just aint so.” However, I think it is instructive to look at how such references to names and representative figures actually operated in these texts.
Nibely got some things wrong; but he is not wrong about the initiatory nature and stand-in status of the various representing the initiate to the after-life.
You will have to explain to me what you are referring to as the mistranslation of the Katumin epitaph as something I am compelled to admit.
But as I admit, the strength of such correspondences is not decisive because nothing is word-for-word. If it were, it would be presumed Joseph had a translation of it somehow. Without such word-for-word relation, there will always be differences. But I am hardly the only one to be fairly impressed by these rather unique similarities: Kevin Barney, “Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation”; Jared W. Ludlow, “Reinterpretation of the Judgment Scene in the Testament of Abraham” in Proceedings of the Evolving Egypt: Innovation, Appropriation and Reinterpretation, ed. John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein (British Archaeological Reports, forthcoming); and Jared W. Ludlow, Abraham Meets Death: Narrative Humor in the Testament of Abraham (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).
“Allen, the welter of textual data concerning Abraham and his connection to Egypt are all manifestly late, much later than the Hebrew Bible, and are Pseudepigraphic writings that *start from* the Biblical text and, like most apologists do, try to connect the Patriarch to what is known about Egypt. The Bible itself only puts Abraham in Egypt to anticipate the later Exodus story.
The approach embraced in this post is the only ultimately fruitful one.”
I would hope that you pay closer attention to the text than you did with my post. My entire point is that these are later texts, and that the BoA shares a great many of their concerns in how it presents its material. The approach that you mention is important and worthwhile, but I’d hardly call it the only fruitful one.
Blake, I think Chris is right on this point.
” For which doctrines, when the Chaldeans, and other people of Mesopotamia, raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country…”
More than merely upset.
Allen: I agree that “raising a tumult against him” suggests that they were upset with him. What it does not say is what the Abrahamic accounts and Book of Abraham say, that on account of his father’s idolatry the priests sought to take his life and sacrifice him. But again, I would not expect this alone to be decisive.
I would add that the really arresting similarities are the equation of Osiris with Abraham and Horus with the angel of the Lord. That relation is not at all obvious.
“Allen: I agree that “raising a tumult against him” suggests that they were upset with him.”
More than merely upset.
Johnson defines tumult as a riot. It was bad enough to make Abraham leave the place. Hardly a stretch at all to conclude that they tried to kill him. Then again, the midrashic account was not unknown, either.
I am just a dumb farmer – but it seems odd to me the many theories being tossed about – Why not take the theory that Joseph Smith claimed as factual – A discovery of Papyri written by the hand of Abraham while he was in Egypt? And why would the Church move away from the bold declaration to the world that through the arrangements of God the record was delivered to Joseph for translation. Joseph claimed to have the power to translate the record…why doubt him?
Blake,
I think I’m going to keep this brief, since you don’t appear to be open to changing your mind on this issue. So just a couple minor points.
First, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, not a hard atheist, so you’re wrong to assume I exclude the possibility that revelation could be received. I frequently revisit the question in light of research on NDEs and anecdotal accounts of religious experience. In fact, my study of Mormon phenomena such as the BoA preceded my loss of faith in the supernatural (and played a large role in bringing it about in the first place), so I gave them a much more open-minded examination than most.
Second, “tumult” can mean just a loud, confused noise, but it can also mean violence, such as a fight or a riot.
Third, you can read about the Katumin epitaph here.
As for the rest of it, I think I’ll just roll my eyes and direct readers back to my previous post.
Peace,
-Chris
Chris, I really like your reasonable voice and approach to the BoA. Well, not just to the BoA, but anyway. Makes it easy to find common ground for dialogue.
Thanks, Allen!
No worries Christopher, if dismissive eye rolling is the best ya got, it aint going to much of a discussion now is it. It is really hard to dialogue with one rolling eyes. In any event, thanks for the reference (though for the life of me I can’t figure out why you think it establishes what you assert). Open mindedness is a considerable virtue, and I am open to various views on this issue. I just haven’t seen any good reasons in this discussion to discount the various possibilities I outlined.
The argument that the BoA translation would somehow match a modern Egyptologists translation of the hieroglyphics some of the lost papyri (e.g. we’re missing the long mansion house scroll) has always been ridiculous as we have hieroglyphics and JS’s English translation right on the facsimiles, so everything else is aside the point.
The BoA is just as bit of a “translated” scripture as the Book of Moses in the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the KJV. It is “translated” from a source many, many generations and modifications from the original. The “translated” result includes massive revealed expansions (Enoch, plurality of worlds, etc) no where to be found in the source document, but ostensibly restored from the original history.
The BoA is NOT a translation from the original text, however it’s just as much a translation as the JST Book of Moses was translated from the KVJ.
So whether the BoA scrolls were just another pseudeipigraphal document like the Apocalypse of Abraham, or just remnants of Egyptian religious texts with a just kernel of the Abrahamic religion and history as passed through the centuries, the result is the same.
The BoA source documents were passed down many centuries and modifications and redactions from the original source, just as the KJV was, and JS’s translation from these later documents, were seen as revealed truth about the original events, not an English translation of the source.
Allen:
“I would hope that you pay closer attention to the text than you did with my post. My entire point is that these are later texts, and that the BoA shares a great many of their concerns in how it presents its material.”
And I would hope that your Extensive Research is clearer than your statement about “an earlier text redacted later”. My point was that the texts so many apologists point to as “parallels” to BoA are never pre-biblical, are not later redactions of earlier texts, but are literary creations whose terminus post quem is the Bible. That is, there is no privileged information coming through these texts that would in any way authenticate the Abrahamic antiquity (or even the Greco-Roman antiquity!) of Joseph Smith’s translation. If this describes your position, I’m happy we agree and am sorry for misunderstanding!
“The approach that you mention is important and worthwhile, but I’d hardly call it the only fruitful one.”
Fair enough.
“And I would hope that your Extensive Research is clearer than your statement about “an earlier text redacted later”.”
Why the patronisation implied by the capitalisation of extensive research?
“are not later redactions of earlier texts”
Considering the poor documentary state of most of that time period, the confidence seems a little misplaced. Redactions of redactions of redactions also seems the norm, rather than the exception.
“but are literary creations whose terminus post quem is the Bible.”
I don’t find “literary” a particularly useful term in such discussions, as it retrojects an eminently modern sensibility on to the activities of those under discussion. It doesn’t really describe very well the sort of engagement with text and tradition that Michael Fishbane and James Kugel, for example, described so well. Are we also to assume that all these traditions and exegesis sprang fully formed out of nothing?
“That is, there is no privileged information coming through these texts that would in any way authenticate the Abrahamic antiquity (or even the Greco-Roman antiquity!) of Joseph Smith’s translation.”
Who claimed privileged information? What I said more or less is that the matrix of concerns reflects, to my mind, the outlook of a certain period in antiquity.
“Yes, “standing” could certainly have nothing to do with the Hellenistic divine title. In fact, I personally don’t believe it does. My main point in sharing this as a possible parallel was to highlight that Hellenistic Judaism was less radically monotheistic, and thus clashes less with the theology of the Book of Abraham, than David represented in his post. Hellenistic Jews allowed for the existence of a divine council and sometimes used the word “gods” in reference to both this council and deified humans. You could certainly highlight some points of difference, but Hellenistic Judaism was so diverse that the Book of Abraham could belong to that context even if it contained totally unprecedented and seemingly un-Jewish theological claims.”
You can find this even later.
The Kalir’s qedushta “Ehad be-Ehad Gashu,” lines 295-322, particularly 306-314, is bold writing, to say the least. You can find it in Shalom Spiegel’s posthumous book “The Fathers of Piyyut,” p. 119-121 in the Hebrew edition. God calculates leap years and blesses the months with the righteous, their faces reflect his glory, the stars get their light from them, the heavenly attendants rush to attend them, the divine celestial beings (eyley merom) worship them, and the same words which they use to sanctify God they also use to sanctify the righteous.
Two things make this reference all the more striking. One is the late date, the Byzantine era. Popular wisdom would have Jews fierce monotheists long before then. The second thing to consider is the type of text. Piyyut is a genre of para-liturgical songs which were meant for public recitation in synagogues. This particular qedushta was composed by the Qalir, one of the greatest writers of classical piyut. To make this even better, a qedushta was sung on Sabbaths and holidays after the qedusha prayer was recited. The qedusha employs the trishagion from Isaiah 6:3! In other words, what we have here is a community of dedicated monotheists singing as part of the synagogue service a poem composed by a mainstream poet, a poem claiming that the righteous will be worshipped in the same terms as God is, and all this after reciting the trishagion!
Indeed, Allen. I’ve even seen a quote from one of the Midrashim or Targumim—I don’t recall the exact source—which suggested that humans would not only be deified, but actually become gods or creators of their own worlds! I’ll have to see if I can track that down again.
Here are some of the popular “parallels” apologists like to bring to the table. What they usually don’t tell you is that much of this stuff was easily derived from sources contemporary to Joseph Smith. He had the “School of the Prophets” and sought after numerous books of scholarship on the Bible, religion, languages, etc.
—————————————
“My fathers, having turned from their righteousness … unto the worshipping of the gods of the heathen …” Abraham 1:5.
“Abraham himself also, most agree, was bred up in the same idolatry” (Symon Patrick, et. al., A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old Testament, 1809, on Joshua 24:2).
—————————————-
“my father was led away by their idolatry” Abraham 1:27.
“Terah was an idolater, living in a country from whence, as many think, idolatry first came.” Patrick, op. cit., on Joshua 24:2.
————————————–
“I will … put upon thee [Abraham] … the Priesthood of thy Father …” Abraham 1:18.
“The Jews, in Schalsch Hakka-bala, say he was a priest” Patrick, op. cit., on Joshua 24:2.
————————————–
“a knowledge … of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, I have kept even unto this day” Abraham 1:31.
“He [Abram] communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning …” Josephus, Antiquities, Book I,7.2.
“Astrology is an holy, and most excellent Science .…It is asserted by good Authority, That much of this Learning came out of Paradise, and that our Father Adam after the Fall did communicate the same unto his Son Seth, out of his Memoirs of the state of Innocency: and that Seth made impressions of the same in certain permanent pillars, which were able to withstand both Fire and Water; and that hence Enoch had it, and Noah, and from him Shem, and so it came to Abraham, who increased the knowledg[e] by Divine helps; and taught the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians the principal Rudiments of what they knew herein” (John Butler, Astrology, A Sacred Science [London: N.p.,1680, “Preface”], as cited by D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised ed., [Salt Lake City: Signature Press, 1998], 221. Quinn comments that, “Claims for patriarchal conferral of astrology continued in occult literature down to Joseph Smith’s generation” (221).
—————————————-
“the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also” Abraham 1:12
“this tradition of the Jews says Abraham was cast in the fire for refusing to worship idols, and out of which he was delivered” (Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments …, London, 1811, on Daniel 3:6.)
“If we may credit the tradition … Abraham was cast into such a fire by this idolatrous people, because he would not worship their idols” (Clarke, op. cit., on Daniel 3:6).
—————————————-
“I, Abraham, departed … and the souls we had won in Haran” Abraham 2:14-15
“And all the souls they had gotten … The Chaldee paraphrase interprets this of the proselytes he had won to God” (Patrick, op. cit., on Genesis 12:5).
—————————————–
“But of the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands … and I shall endeavor to write some things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.” Abraham 1:31.
“And some of the Hebrew doctors are so nice as to say that Abraham instructed the men … concerning which he wrote a book … and left it to his son Isaac.” Patrick, op. cit., on Genesis 12:5.
“that the learning of the Jews – I mean their Kaballah – was chemical and ended in true physical performances cannot be better proved than by the Book of Abraham, the Jew, wherein he laid down the secrets of this Art … [in] a gilded book, very old and large.” (Thomas Vaughan, Magica Adamica, 1650, 171-72, as cited by Quinn, 201)
For what it’s worth, despite the claims of scholars like Andrew Hedges and others, Terah’s idolatry, Abraham’s destruction of Terah’s idols, Nimrod’s attempted immolation of Abraham for heresy, and Abraham’s rescue by an angel are Jewish legends that were fairly well published in Joseph Smith’s era.
Kind regards,
Brent
Brent and Kevin: I agree that the sources you have cited were available in Joseph Smith’s time. Joseph likely had access to Josephus and possibly the other sources cited by Kevin in #50. Kevin has done a good job laying out how the basic ideas of Terah’s idolatry led Abraham to leave and I think also that Abraham’s life was in danger from a fiery furnace are present in sources available to Joseph Smith (the latter is a motif that is not present in the Book of Abraham).
I don’t think that these sources show that Joseph in fact relied on them; but only that Joseph could have been aware of them and they could have been the basis of a creative re-reading the Genesis text by him. I accept that such sources effectively blunt the argument that the BofA must be true because Joseph did not have access to them and he had to be aware of some such ancient sources to be able to produce the BofA. I would add that I do not think such an argument is persuasive — and I hope no one takes me to be making such an argument here.
However, I hasten to add that even if that is the case it is consistent with all three options that I outlined in #13. My arguments here are only intended to show why a person may adopt one or more of these options over the others.
That said, I think that the Osiris/Abraham and Horus/angel of God juxtaposition clearly was not current in Joseph Smith’s day, but was adopted by Test.Abr. and Apoc.Abr. and the Book of Abraham. I am sure that there were sources in Joseph Smith’s day that referenced the council in heaven and pre-existence of souls as well. However, I believe that the way the Apoc.Abr. and BofA deal with them is suggestive (though not dispositively so) of a common tradition or source.
Is it possible to claim that the BOA is a true record of Abraham inspired in its translation by deity, then argue for the evidences of this translation in parallels and other points without then fully embracing what is contained in the Book of Abraham?
Blake, was there a literal, world wide flood event whose waters receded off of the face of the land of Egypt within a few hundred years before the birth of Abraham?
Luis: I do not believe in a literal world-wide flood, but I believe there was a flood that appeared to engulf the entire world from the perspective of those who experienced it.
“Indeed, Allen. I’ve even seen a quote from one of the Midrashim or Targumim—I don’t recall the exact source—which suggested that humans would not only be deified, but actually become gods or creators of their own worlds! I’ll have to see if I can track that down again.”
I suspect that you are thinking of the Alpha-Beta deRabbi Akiva, a remarkable work that contains some of the strongest teachings on theosis in Judaism. It, BTW, was known and referenced in Orthodox Judaism even as late as the mid 19th century.
Thanks, Allen! That’s the one I was remembering. It’s a later text than I remembered, but still—kind of mind-blowing.
Out of curiosity, do you have training in Jewish history, or are you an enthusiast? You certainly seem to know your stuff. Jewish gnosticism and Kabbalah have been a long-standing side interest for me, and I’m also becoming interested in the history of Zionism, but my knowledge doesn’t approach yours. Always enjoy your comments; you bring a badly-needed perspective to the blog!
P.S. Here’s the quote, in case anyone is wondering: “And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the world to come the ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds.” Midrash Alpha Beta diR. Akiba, BhM 3:32, quoted in Ralph Patai, The Messiah Texts (Detroit:Wayne State University Press, 1979), 251.
Chris, thank you for your kind remarks.
“Out of curiosity, do you have training in Jewish history, or are you an enthusiast?”
I won’t count my elementary through high school years in Israel, so I don’t have any formal training, I’m merely an enthusiast. I try to read as mch as I can get my hands on. Still, I’m actually presenting my first paper at the MSH conference on the 16th.
BTW, if you are looking into the history of Zionism, I warmly recommend Meir Shalev’s family memoir, “My Russian Grandmother and Her American Vacuum Cleaner.” It tells the family story of his grandparents who were among the first Jewish settlers in the Jezreel Valley of the 1920s. It really helps put a human face on Zionism. I remember meeting people from that generation when I was a little kid, but they were soon gone. That generation was not an easy one, they combined an unbelievable degrees of pettiness, stubborness, and idealism. Shalev’s grandmother was charming, but also proud, touvhy, and obsessed with waging an unceasing battle against the primordial mud and dust of the valley. He does a fantastic job of showing his family’s foibles and strengths, as well as their penchant for storytelling, and the paths that memory takes.
There exists a record of what Joseph Smith stated the papyrus to be, namely the writings of Abraham, the writings of Joseph, etc. M.H. Chandler certified that Jospeh could translate the characters and hieroglyphs. Through Joseph’s translations of characters, it was discovered that the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph.
This is the history of the church, July 6, 1835. In order to believe the church is what Joseph claimed we must consider these statements true, like we consider the first vision true.
Joseph stated this endeavor was a translation on Nov. 26, 1835. On Dec. 31 of the same year he gives a detailed account of how the mummies and scrolls come into his possession and added that “a correct translation of which I shall give in its proper place.”
When Joseph published these in the times and seasons:
“THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM”
“TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH.”
“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.”
Joseph Smith is our primary source, and he states, this is “a Translation of some Ancient Records, while he was in Egypt, written by his own hand upon papyrus.”
The first question should be, why does the church feel that they need to change Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Book of Abraham and his “correct” translation of the characters.
I think Joseph knew the difference between a an inspired version of scripture(JS version of the KJV), a translation through the power of God(BoM), and a translation that required development of an alphabet as in the case of the Book of Abraham.
Did Joseph know his translation was inspired? I think he would disagree with the new intro.
Ecce veritas! Ecce cadaveros:
Behold the truth! Behold the mummies!
David, your argument in the OP assumes that the five chapters of the BoA all have the same provenance. Personally, though, I don’t view it that way. I think it’s pretty clear that chapters 4 and 5 are a midrashic interpretation of KJV Genesis 1-2, along the lines of what Joseph did in the JST. The reason I think this is that in many cases, the English of the Abraham text would not presuppose a differentl underlying text from KJV Genesis 1-2; many of the revisions are translation-based rather than textually based and reflect Joseph’s learning at the Kirtland Hebrew School. Since there is a clear ur-text to those two chapters (KJV Genesis 1-2), I personally don’t see them as having an Abrahamic origin. Which means that there has to be some other explanation for chpaters 1-3, whether that is authenticly Abrahamic, authenticly anciently pseudepigraphic, or modernly pseudepgigraphic.
Thank you, Kevin, for sharing your perspective. I’m not surprised that we agree on chapters 4-5. In light of the fact that these chapters could not have been written by Abraham and show the Prophet working with sources (KJV), I think we should employ the notion that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
To try and parse the book up as a production of authentic Abraham, Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphic Abraham, and Joseph Smith Abraham requires too many unnecessary steps and fails to address the way critics have shown the book to rely upon Facsimile 1. Rather than an interpretation that follows the evidence critically, this hypothesis seems from my perspective like a complicated effort designed to preserve a specific theological paradigm regarding the book.
Best,
–DB
I wasn’t suggesting a hypothesis about 1-3, I was merely suggesting that that material is completely open vis-a-vis 4-5.