Book of Abraham as Autobiography

[Guest]

Hi Chris,

I appreciate and enjoy reading your continuing studies on the BoAbr.

Your portrayal of portions of the BoAbr as Smithian autobiography is interesting though, in my considered opinion, unpersuasive. Joseph Smith's apologue of the failed priestly execution of Abraham has numerous early-19thC antecedents, as does his tale of the three virgin infidels (Abr. 1:11). Those antebellum traditions coupled with the evocative image on the fragmented vignette (Fac. 1) are more than sufficient to explain the BoAbr narrative (sans Smith's presumed lingering nightmares of barbaric leg surgery).

I am persuaded that the BoAbr fossilizes Smith's theology during two discrete eras—Kirtland and Nauvoo.

For instance, the priesthood "curse" in Abraham 1:21ff involves a patriarchal line of authority. Patriarchal Priesthood via patrilineal descent occupied Smith's mind in the fall of 1835 (attested to in revisions to early patriarchal blessings when transcribed in Sep.–Oct. 1835). Because of their matriarchal heritage, Hamite pharaohs had no claim to "Priesthood"—but which "Priesthood"? Patriarchal Priesthood. That's why Joseph had no problem with the ordination of blacks (like Elijah Abel) to the non-genetic Melchizedek Priesthood.

My best,

</brent>

[Edit: Fixed two minor typos.]


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Brent,

Do you have reason to believe that Smith was privy to the traditions you mention?

Best,

-Chris

[_Chap]

He is not saying that the Book of Abraham contains statements that are true from the point of view of modern astronomy, and that the text is therefore validated.

Okay, I really understand this statement;
He's not saying Astronomical facts are facts, but the text is validated.....
Okay...
I get it.
No, I just need to get a couple stiff Jack Daniels in my system. So I can understand.

Sorry. The work I do makes me write sentences like that. If people find them non-reader-friendly, that is my fault.

How about this:

What EnumaElish is NOT saying is:

1. The Book of Abraham says things about astronomy.

AND

2. The things that it says about astronomy are true.

THEREFORE

3. The Book of Abraham is what Smith said it was - an ancient writing by Abraham.

Have I communicated this time?

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Chris,

Do you have reason to believe that Smith was privy to the traditions you mention?

Given how pervasive and readily accessible they were (contra Andrew Hedges), the surprise would be if Joseph weren't privy to such traditions—either through his personal reading or (more likely in my opinion for evidentiary reasons) via his well-read scribes.

[Edit: My either-or is not intended to exclude other ways Smith could have learned Abrahamic legends—I intended only to note two of the more probable ways.]

Best wishes,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hey Brent,

I'm always a little skeptical when suggestions of intertextuality are made without rigorous work to demonstrate the likelihood of the borrowing author's familiarity with his alleged source. Your suggestion is of course more plausible than the apologists' argument that late sources like the Qisas Al-Anbiya preserve authentic details about the life of Abraham, but I must nevertheless treat it with the same skepticism until the pervasiveness and ready accessibility of the traditions to which you refer are actually demonstrated.

In the meantime, I think we have perfectly good sources in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews ("when the Chaldeans, and other people of Mesopotamia, raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country" - Bk. 1, ch. 7) and the vignette itself. And while I admit that there is not necessarily any need to posit that half-remembered nightmares of leg surgery influenced the Book of Abraham narrative, neither do I think it unlikely. Perhaps there is a reason that when Joseph Smith looked at a picture of one man lying on a table and another standing threateningly over him, it was a knife that immediately suggested itself to him for filling in the lacuna. Although Oliver Cowdery and most other visitors who viewed the papyri were much more interested in the Ta-shere-min roll and its apparent depictions of Adam and Eve, Joseph Smith took as his starting place the frightful depiction on the Hor roll that we know as Facsimile 1.

Of course, both of our reconstructions rely on some imaginative reconstruction, and it is unlikely that either will ever be fully proven over against the others. At some level, perhaps they represent two fundamentally different views of Joseph: the view of him, on the one hand, as primarily a careful and conscious forger, and the view of him on the other hand as primarily a mystical and intuitive artist. (In my opinion there is truth to both views, but my impression is that I see him more in the latter light than do most of those who see his work as heavily dependent upon non-biblical nineteenth-century sources. I admit I'm a little surprised to see you arguing for such dependence.)

In any case, I still look forward to the essay on nineteenth-century Abrahamic traditions that is promised on the Mormon Scripture Studies site, should you get eventually get around to publishing it. I have no doubt it will go a long way toward assuaging my doubts about the plausibility of your hypothesis. Cheers,

-Chris

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Chris,

I'm always a little skeptical when suggestions of intertextuality are made without rigorous work to demonstrate the likelihood of the borrowing author's familiarity with his alleged source.

I share your skepticism and your desire for rigor—this is why I reject the Spalding-Rigdon conspiracy as a viable explanation for BoMor authorship.

I'm wrapping up a few professional commitments over the next couple of days, but I hope to follow-up with a few thoughts on the prospect of a source-critical analysis of the BoAbr.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Brackite]

Bump.