Backyard Professor Responds: Book of Abraham as Pseudepigrapha

[Philo Sofee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1TTxd-r6fE

I mentioned in my last podcast Richard Bushman says the Book of Abraham is pseudepigrapha. That is a strong claim and bound to be seriously controversial. In this podcast, the BYP delivers. I produce the video clip and then discuss some of its ramifications within Mormon scholarship itself for the future.

[Shulem]

That is a strong claim and bound to be seriously controversial.

It's DOA and cannot possibly represent what Joseph Smith was actually claiming and what the saints in Nauvoo thought about Abraham's book being restored through the miraculous translations of Joseph Smith. Bushman is clearly in the Catalyst camp where the Church is making its last stand with the Book of Abraham. But WE are going to destroy their argument and put an end to the Book of Abraham once and for all.

We have been called to the work. Thrust in your sickle, BYP! Stay current in my Celestial threads, please.

Book of Abraham is “Pseudepigrapha”

[huckelberry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1TTxd-r6fE

I mentioned in my last podcast Richard Bushman says the Book of Abraham is pseudepigrapha. That is a strong claim and bound to be seriously controversial. In this podcast, the BYP delivers. I produce the video clip and then discuss some of its ramifications within Mormon scholarship itself for the future.

I wondered what Bushmans view was and found this article with a good description.
https://www.millennialstar.org/richard- ... f-abraham/

This view has the advantage of being true while open to both a believing take(that it is inspiration from God) or a skeptical view,( that it is fiction). Well a mix a both might be view somebody creates. Similarly some might say Joseph partially misunderstood. Or it might be said Joseph misrepresented the situation.

Or if you want to create an atmosphere of mystery and spiritual awe you can say there was the unknown code passed down from Abraham and followed by scribes who thought they were making a funeral document but passing on revelation to Joseph Smith.

[Philo Sofee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1TTxd-r6fE

I mentioned in my last podcast Richard Bushman says the Book of Abraham is pseudepigrapha. That is a strong claim and bound to be seriously controversial. In this podcast, the BYP delivers. I produce the video clip and then discuss some of its ramifications within Mormon scholarship itself for the future.

I wondered what Bushmans view was and found this article with a good description.
https://www.millennialstar.org/richard- ... f-abraham/

This view has the advantage of being true while open to both a believing take(that it is inspiration from God) or a skeptical view,( that it is fiction). Well a mix a both might be view somebody creates. Similarly some might say Joseph partially misunderstood. Or it might be said Joseph misrepresented the situation.

Or if you want to create an atmosphere of mystery and spiritual awe you can say there was the unknown code passed down from Abraham and followed by scribes who thought they were making a funeral document but passing on revelation to Joseph Smith.

Thanks for the reference Huck! Yeah this last idea of code has been tried by quite a few folks, Nibley, Tvedtnes, Scryver, all to no avail, but we never know, someone may break it yet!

[Shulem]

Yeah this last idea of code has been tried by quite a few folks, Nibley, Tvedtnes, Scryver, all to no avail, but we never know, someone may break it yet!

It's Schryver not Scryver.

Don't forget the copyrighted 2023 free book so graciously provided by Mr. Ed Goble who is the low man on the fallen apologetic pole.

Papyrus Puzzle: Solving Confusion about the Book of Abraham

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that the reason the Lord told him (D&C 91) not to translate the Apocrypha was because there were things in there that were not true and so it was not necessary that it be addressed and published by the church. The bottom line is that "There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men."

So with that being said, the Apocrypha could be classed or likened to pseudepigrapha because of nontruths and interpolations coming from man rather than God. Following this reasoning it seems that Joseph Smith would not have translated or endorsed books of pseudepigrapha that he felt were not truly authored by persons claiming to author the work. If Smith knew that a certain pseudepigraphal book was a fake pretending to be scripture he would have considered it anathema or at minimum caution his followers to not pay it any mind.

So where does that leave the Book of Abraham as pseudepigrapha which is therefore a book founded upon a lie? The first lie being that the claimed author did not really author the book but pretended to write in another person's name. That is lying! A lie is a lie, period even if done with good intentions and for pious reasons. So the idea of placing the Book of Abraham in the class of pseudepigrapha means that it's okay to accept a lie which is contrary to the 9th commandment given by Moses which commands that we NOT LIE.

The whole idea presented by Bushman is fatally flawed. How ironic.

[Kishkumen]

That was a great episode, Philo!

[honorentheos]

So where does that leave the Book of Abraham as pseudepigrapha which is therefore a book founded upon a lie? The first lie being that the claimed author did not really author the book but pretended to write in another person's name. That is lying!

The entirety of the Pearl of Great Price would be subject to this criticism. The Pentateuch was not authored by Moses, Joseph Smith's History is the edited work of scribes (see https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd for example). The Old Testament is largely Pseudepigrapha as is much of the New Testament. It may be that, in the age of information, this change is accepting what may be inevitable as a conclusion if one weeks to maintain belief. It reminds me of David Bokovoy's approach in his book on the Documentary Hypothesis that, given the evidence of how Judeo-Christian scripture was produced, questioned if perhaps it's better to accept the evidence and to then figure out how God speaks to prophets.

[Philo Sofee]

So where does that leave the Book of Abraham as pseudepigrapha which is therefore a book founded upon a lie? The first lie being that the claimed author did not really author the book but pretended to write in another person's name. That is lying!

The entirety of the Pearl of Great Price would be subject to this criticism. The Pentateuch was not authored by Moses, Joseph Smith's History is the edited work of scribes (see https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd for example). The Old Testament is largely Pseudepigrapha as is much of the New Testament. It may be that, in the age of information, this change is accepting what may be inevitable as a conclusion if one weeks to maintain belief. It reminds me of David Bokovoy's approach in his book on the Documentary Hypothesis that, given the evidence of how Judeo-Christian scripture was produced, questioned if perhaps it's better to accept the evidence and to then figure out how God speaks to prophets.

Thanks for that spectacular source Honor!

[dwt1978]

So where does that leave the Book of Abraham as pseudepigrapha which is therefore a book founded upon a lie? The first lie being that the claimed author did not really author the book but pretended to write in another person's name. That is lying!

The entirety of the Pearl of Great Price would be subject to this criticism. The Pentateuch was not authored by Moses, Joseph Smith's History is the edited work of scribes (see https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=etd for example). The Old Testament is largely Pseudepigrapha as is much of the New Testament. It may be that, in the age of information, this change is accepting what may be inevitable as a conclusion if one weeks to maintain belief. It reminds me of David Bokovoy's approach in his book on the Documentary Hypothesis that, given the evidence of how Judeo-Christian scripture was produced, questioned if perhaps it's better to accept the evidence and to then figure out how God speaks to prophets.

Responding to the statement saying "The Old Testament is largely Pseudepigrapha as is much of the New Testament."

"I do not think that word means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

The Oxford Dictionary says it means "Spurious or pseudonymous writings, especially Jewish writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Christ." You might find someone who agrees with you in calling parts of the Bible "pseudepigrapha", but generally speaking, the majority of scholars do not class any of Canonical Books of the Bible (including the Apocrypha) as Pseudepigrapha.

I'd be interested in knowing the titles of any scholarly works on Pseudepigrapha, that class parts of the Bible under that heading.
This is not to say the quoted statement is false. Only that I've never heard the Bible classed as pseudepigrapha.