A Red Herring on Wikipedia...

[_truth dancer]

Hi EE,

Just out of curiosity, do you know what any LDS leaders think about the Book of Abraham?

In other words do you think they agree with you? Do they share your understanding?

Have you ever shared your beliefs/knowledge with any of them?

Outside of apologists, I have never, ever, EVER, heard anything from LDS leaders or in any LDS church manual that even come close to suggesting anything other than the Book of Abraham is a book, translated from Egyptian scrolls by Joseph Smith from a record written by the hand of Abraham.

I think Paul O. is the only apologists with which I am familiar who holds a view consistent with LDS teaching.

Just wondering,

~td~

Again... where is the prophet? A thirty second question to God could clear up the confusion.

[_Ray A]

Just out of curiosity, do you know what any LDS leaders think about the Book of Abraham?

Not answering for EE of course, but from Stan Larson:

“Ferguson said that the thing that first led him to serious question the Church was the papyri purported to be the source of the Book of Abraham. He said he took a photograph of the papyri to a couple of friends of his that were scholars at Cal., Berkeley. They described the documents as funeral texts. This bothered Ferguson in a serious way! Later he said that he took the evidence to Hugh B. Brown.... After reviewing the evidence with Brother Brown he [Ferguson] said that Brother Brown agreed with him that it was not scripture. He did not say or infer that it was his evidence that convinced Brother Brown of this conclusion. But nevertheless, he did say that Hugh B. Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham was what the Church said it was.”

- Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, p. 138

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi David,

Enough of the scroll has been preserved to date the text to the late Ptolemaic era, so Abraham didn’t write the scroll.

This fact would mean that the Book of Abraham featured on the scroll of Horus was either written by a Jewish author as piece of pseudeopigraphy comparable to the Apocalypse of Abraham, the book of Enoch, or even the biblical book of Deuteronomy, or that the account had originally been written by Abraham himself, preserved and no doubt edited by subsequent Jewish editors and then incorporated into the Egyptian scroll of Horus by an Egyptian editor.

Either way, if the Book of Abraham appeared on the late Ptolemaic scroll of Horus, we would expect the account to use the term Chaldeans to refer to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

Hence, any critic that uses the attestation of this expression as evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham presents a misinformed argument.

I understand your argument. But my point is that I've not yet encountered an apologist who was actually willing to make the argument above, and in my opinion that argument would be problematic for its own reasons. Someone earlier in this thread asked, "wasn't Joseph Smith supposed to restore things to their original goodness?" The answer is that yes, he was. This is the Book of Abraham "as penned by the hand of Father Abraham." The usual apologetic dodge is that the word "as" does not imply that the Horus papyrus is an Abraham autograph. Nevertheless, I think it does imply that the Book of Abraham is translated as Abraham penned it. I can accept the "true but not ancient" argument. But once you start getting into "ancient but not true" territory, I can't help but wonder what's the point.

In short, I can't agree with you that the Chaldean argument is a "misinformed argument". It is misinformed only if the person to whom it is presented already holds the strange view you are suggesting would be the only logical one for them to hold. If they do not already hold that view, then presenting them with the Chaldea argument should encourage them to either adopt that view or adopt something like your own. If they adopt the view in question, then there are new problems created that may eventually lead them the rest of the way down the spectrum toward Bokovoyism. We learn line upon line and precept upon precept, David, and if we are robbed of any step along the way because someone assumes we should already know something, then our progression will be abortive.

Best,

-Chris

[_Enuma Elish]

Chris,

I understand your argument. But my point is that I've not yet encountered an apologist who was actually willing to make the argument above, and in my opinion that argument would be problematic for its own reasons.

I agree with you that the argument I presented is problematic which is why I don't adhere to it.

You may never have encountered the implications laid out this specifically, however, I can assure you that I'm not stating anything revolutionary.

No one believes that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus. Every believing LDS scholar in the world recognizes that it is an Egyptian funerary text that dates to the late Ptolemaic era.

Therefore, if the papyrus contained a book of Abraham like many LDS scholars maintain, then the account would have been either a reproduction of something Abraham wrote, incorporated directly into the scroll by an editor/author, or a later pseudopigraphic text incorporated into the scroll of Horus.

Either way, due to the lateness of the text, we would expect to find the term Chaldeans used as a reference to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia in the document. Again, it's an extremely fluid term used in Jewish writings.

The only way it would ever serve as a problem for the orthodox view is if one assumes that Abraham wrote the scroll of Horus which contained the account and again, no one believes that, so the argument is problematic.

[_Trevor]

Someone earlier in this thread asked, "wasn't Joseph Smith supposed to restore things to their original goodness?" The answer is that yes, he was. This is the Book of Abraham "as penned by the hand of Father Abraham." The usual apologetic dodge is that the word "as" does not imply that the Horus papyrus is an Abraham autograph. Nevertheless, I think it does imply that the Book of Abraham is translated as Abraham penned it. I can accept the "true but not ancient" argument. But once you start getting into "ancient but not true" territory, I can't help but wonder what's the point.

Subject to further explanation on your part, I am not certain that the dichotomy you present at the end of this paragraph represents the full range of options. The biggest problem I would have would be in your use of the word "true." Do you mean "true" as in literally penned by Abraham or something else? Because a Ptolemaic date would certainly make the attribution to Abraham problematic, but I am not sure it would therefore also be false, except in the limited sense that it was not in fact personally written by Abraham. Am I missing something here?

And, to be blunt, when has such tinkering with perceptions caused huge problems for apologists and also the membership at large? Is LGT causing big problems for the LDS Church right now? Would a Ptolemaic date for Abraham be any more upsetting? Most LDS people tend to assume that all books in the Bible are written by the credited authors, and this in spite of the fact that a number of LDS scholars probably do not share that view. If the LDS Church is capable of sailing along with this kind of contradiction, then I am not sure how an apologetic argument in favor of a pseudepigraphic, Ptolemic Book of Abraham would be any different.

Personally, I think non-fundamentalist believers should just learn to accept pseudepigraphy as not only an acceptable, but perhaps also the predominating form of scripture composition. It already is in the Bible, so why not in the LDS canon as well? Joseph's authorship in the name of various ancient prophets was simply following a very ancient tradition of the heroic nom de plume.

[_Trevor]

Therefore, if the papyrus contained a book of Abraham like many LDS scholars maintain, then the account would have been either a reproduction of something Abraham wrote, incorporated directly into the scroll by an editor/author, or a later pseudopigraphic text incorporated into the scroll of Horus.

David, pardon my pedantry with a fellow scholar, and a fine fellow, but your inadvertent error in the spelling "pseudopigraphic" is driving me nuts. I have always seen it spelled "pseudepigraphic." I believe that is the conventional spelling. Apologies in advance. I am sure my many errors render this quibble perfectly hypocritical of me, but I can't help myself.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello TD,

Hi EE,

Just out of curiosity, do you know what any LDS leaders think about the Book of Abraham?

In other words do you think they agree with you? Do they share your understanding?

Have you ever shared your beliefs/knowledge with any of them?

Outside of apologists, I have never, ever, EVER, heard anything from LDS leaders or in any LDS church manual that even come close to suggesting anything other than the Book of Abraham is a book, translated from Egyptian scrolls by Joseph Smith from a record written by the hand of Abraham.

I think Paul O. is the only apologists with which I am familiar who holds a view consistent with LDS teaching.

Just wondering,

~td~

Again... where is the prophet? A thrity second question to God could clear up the confusion.

In view of the fact that the highest calling I have ever occupied in the Church is that of Ward Nursery leader, I'm afraid that I have no idea what the General Authorities of the Church personally believe on this issue.

However, given the fact that the issue of how the Book of Abraham came into being and who authored the text is entirely irrelevant for the book's spiritual/scriptural merit, I seriously doubt that most of the leaders have given the matter too much thought.

[_Enuma Elish]

Therefore, if the papyrus contained a book of Abraham like many LDS scholars maintain, then the account would have been either a reproduction of something Abraham wrote, incorporated directly into the scroll by an editor/author, or a later pseudopigraphic text incorporated into the scroll of Horus.

David, pardon my pedantry with a fellow scholar, and a fine fellow, but your inadvertent error in the spelling "pseudopigraphic" is driving me nuts. I have always seen it spelled "pseudepigraphic." I believe that is the conventional spelling. Apologies in advance. I am sure my many errors render this quibble perfectly hypocritical of me, but I can't help myself.

No, Trevor, you're right to correct. The proper form is indeed pseudepigraphic. Thanks.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Therefore, if the papyrus contained a book of Abraham like many LDS scholars maintain, then the account would have been either a reproduction of something Abraham wrote, incorporated directly into the scroll by an editor/author, or a later pseudopigraphic text incorporated into the scroll of Horus.

David, pardon my pedantry with a fellow scholar, and a fine fellow, but your inadvertent error in the spelling "pseudopigraphic" is driving me nuts. I have always seen it spelled "pseudepigraphic." I believe that is the conventional spelling. Apologies in advance. I am sure my many errors render this quibble perfectly hypocritical of me, but I can't help myself.

We could care less about the conventional spelling, Trevor. The spelling of the word, or how the word came to be spelled as it is, doesn't affect the meaning, anyway.

Irregardless.



KA

[_Enuma Elish]

Personally, I think non-fundamentalist believers should just learn to accept pseudepigraphy as not only an acceptable, but perhaps also the predominating form of scripture composition. It already is in the Bible, so why not in the LDS canon as well? Joseph's authorship in the name of various ancient prophets was simply following a very ancient tradition of the heroic nom de plume.

Just wanted to add my personal Amen to this specific assessment. This precisely reflects my own personal views.