The Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham Refuting Nibley

[_Philo Sofee]

In acquiring updated texts on the subject of influence of ancient texts on Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, I have received a book by Alexander Kulik, "Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham," Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Nibley's arguments from the late 1960-70's and then updated in the John Gee editions of his "Abraham in Egypt" has been a fascinating exercise in re-reading to get a handle on how to review the great Nibley. I have discovered one thing that is turning into one of his quite strong weaknesses, amazingly! He over-emphasized certain things, while ignoring other equally valid contexts, backgrounds, etc. This actually is one of the things William Hamblin critiqued him about in his Book of Mormon studies, interestingly enough! (I can use that too!). But, no, this little gem of a book I just got is a nifty addition to my own updating. I have discovered something about Nibley I had never entertained before. He was no slouch, of course, and his intellect was seriously razor sharp, obviously. His downfall then? His haste. He was impatient in some things. I now know what and how he threw up smoke screens in order to control the direction apologetics NEEDED to take to save Joseph Smith. Nibley pulled it off. No! He really did pull it off man.... that is...... for a few decades. But time has caught up, and ..... well, for cryin out loud, I can't tell ya everything or there will be no reason to read my book, right?

I know it's boring as hell, but just letting it out there that there really are other angles to the Nibley view which apologists are just not coming to terms with. The entire apologetic apparatus I believe still resides on the foundation of Nibley's assumptions and views. It is those that I am re-examining in my book. Stay tuned for more updates as I wear out my poor fingers. The good news is, it will get rid of any fingerprints I have, and I could become a mastermind criminal that has no fingerprints....

[_Kishkumen]

Of course, time moves on and scholarly trends change. Not all contributions stand the test of time. My guess is that very few things come out of that test unscathed.

[_Philo Sofee]

Of course, time moves on and scholarly trends change. Not all contributions stand the test of time. My guess is that very few things come out of that test unscathed.

This reminds me of something I used to say as an apologist, ironically enough...... "Read em all, believe none of em." (meaning that whatever we read, eventually, gets dated. sigh....... Nibley wasn't all that far off when he said "I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote three years ago."

[_Kishkumen]

This reminds me of something I used to say as an apologist, ironically enough...... "Read em all, believe none of em." (meaning that whatever we read, eventually, gets dated. sigh....... Nibley wasn't all that far off when he said "I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote three years ago."

Scholarship is a way of getting at certain kinds of knowledge. It is also a kind of game. We are forever engaged in a discussion that has its own rules, and often the game is about advancing careers as much as it is about advancing knowledge. I strive to understand the past better, and I try to be responsible in my use of the evidence as I advance my own arguments. It is a demanding discipline. And, yes, the landscape is constantly changing, making it difficult to find one's footing and make a real impact on the larger discussion. To an extent it is about one's ability; to an extent it is about luck. So many great minds never make a dent in the discussion. Some mediocre minds have an outsized influence.

I believe in the value of engaging in the discussion, but I increasingly question the weight that academic arguments have in religious discussions. The truth of the matter is that, for the most part, the past is a rhetorical tool in religious conversations. We cannot live the religion of the past in the present. It is simply impossible. If we think we are, then we are fooling ourselves. Now, I think it is fair to say that the discussion of the past can be used as a tool to regulate the present, but this should not be overdone. I do not see it as desirable to practice the religion of an Iron Age people living under a monarch.