Kishkumen wrote:We may respond differently because I never considered the concept of the Biblical canon at all important.
I'm not sure what you mean. How would that cause you to respond differently? I'd think, if anything, that would make the fallacy of defining pseudepigrapha in relation to canon even more painful. After all, there are pseudepigrapha within the canon as well as without. I stand by my assessment: absurd snow job.
CaliforniaKid wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. How would that cause you to respond differently? I'd think, if anything, that would make the fallacy of defining pseudepigrapha in relation to canon even more painful. After all, there are pseudepigrapha within the canon as well as without. I stand by my assessment: absurd snow job.
I am not sure why I should personally find it more painful. We must be miscommunicating here. If Nibley is not concerned about the canon, and I am not concerned about the canon, and Nibley writes to LDS readers who are not really concerned about the Christian concept of canon under the assumption that they will be sympathetic to his view, then why would anyone be upset? Because he doesn't view it the way secular scholars do? Because we have all been robbed of the opportunity to learn what others think of it?
I guess I am missing something, or we are miscommunicating somehow. I still don't see wherein the alleged snow job exists if he writes to a non-scholarly LDS reader with LDS assumptions at the fore.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
In Abraham in Egypt, Nibley sets out to prove that the Book of Abraham is a historical text about Abraham. Not that its theology agrees with some universal religious gestalt, but that it actually provides accurate information about a historical figure of ancient Egypt/Palestine ca. 2000 BC. To accomplish this, he attempts to corroborate the Book of Abraham story from other texts about Abraham.
Those texts, however, have a credibility problem. They were composed some two thousand years after the events they're supposed to describe. They are fraudulently attributed. They interpret the Hebrew scriptures through an alien cultural lens. Many of the points of parallel Nibley draws between these texts and the Book of Abraham are rooted in Greek ideas and Greek misreadings of Genesis that would have been alien to Abraham's actual cultural milieu (assuming such a person really existed). Had Nibley offered the real definition of the word pseudepigrapha, these texts' credibility problem would have quickly become evident to his readers. So instead, he conceals the credibility problem by offering a false and absurd non-definition.
Had he offered the real definition but then provided some rationale for why the pseudepigraphical texts should still be taken seriously for his purposes, then OK. Had he made an honest mistake about what the term pseudepigrapha means, then OK. But actively concealing the problems with your methodology? That is what's called a snow job.
It is apparent from the existing records that many of the early church leaders viewed the cave experience as a legitimate event, whether an actual physical experience or a visionary one.
By looking at the accounts and the context in which they were shared, one can see that regardless of the metaphysical nature of Cumorah's cave, it has served to teach important gospel principles—principles such as God's miraculous dealings with man, his dominion over all things, consecration, and continuing revelation.
What are these people smoking up there? Each others crap?
Seriously, I pity these poor fools who feel the need to believe LDS theology, especially after they stumble upon things like Cumorah's cave. What a terrible cross of Joseph's hair brained BS that they must bear to remain in this cult.
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
I find it amazing that MI/FARMS calls the temple ceremony True Masonry, yet most temple Mormons would be highly offended if they were told that the origins of the temple ceremony are from Masonry.
Joseph, the Prophet, was aware that there were some things about Masonry which had come down from the beginning and he desired to know what they were, hence the lodge.
The Masons admitted some keys of knowledge appertaining to Masonry were lost. Joseph inquired of the Lord concerning the matter and He revealed to the Prophet true Masonry, as we have it in our temples.
Owing to the superior knowledge Joseph received, the Masons became jealous and cut off the Mormon lodge.
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Polygamy-Porter wrote:I find it amazing that MI/FARMS calls the temple ceremony True Masonry, yet most temple Mormons would be highly offended if they were told that the origins of the temple ceremony are from Masonry.
Joseph, the Prophet, was aware that there were some things about Masonry which had come down from the beginning and he desired to know what they were, hence the lodge.
The Masons admitted some keys of knowledge appertaining to Masonry were lost. Joseph inquired of the Lord concerning the matter and He revealed to the Prophet true Masonry, as we have it in our temples.
Owing to the superior knowledge Joseph received, the Masons became jealous and cut off the Mormon lodge.
"Is There No Help for the Widow's Son?"
No, it isn't.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
CaliforniaKid wrote:Yes, I think we're miscommunicating. :)
Cool.
CaliforniaKid wrote:In Abraham in Egypt, Nibley sets out to prove that the Book of Abraham is a historical text about Abraham. Not that its theology agrees with some universal religious gestalt, but that it actually provides accurate information about a historical figure of ancient Egypt/Palestine ca. 2000 BC. To accomplish this, he attempts to corroborate the Book of Abraham story from other texts about Abraham.
Those texts, however, have a credibility problem. They were composed some two thousand years after the events they're supposed to describe. They are fraudulently attributed. They interpret the Hebrew scriptures through an alien cultural lens. Many of the points of parallel Nibley draws between these texts and the Book of Abraham are rooted in Greek ideas and Greek misreadings of Genesis that would have been alien to Abraham's actual cultural milieu (assuming such a person really existed). Had Nibley offered the real definition of the word pseudepigrapha, these texts' credibility problem would have quickly become evident to his readers. So instead, he conceals the credibility problem by offering a false and absurd non-definition.
Had he offered the real definition but then provided some rationale for why the pseudepigraphical texts should still be taken seriously for his purposes, then OK. Had he made an honest mistake about what the term pseudepigrapha means, then OK. But actively concealing the problems with your methodology? That is what's called a snow job.
OK. I see what you are saying. That's fine. I am not interested in arguing about it. Obviously, I don't agree with concealing one's methodology. I think there are mitigating factors, so I doubt I would frame it in such unflattering terms. If Nibley were trained in recent decades, and he were to pull the same stuff now, then I would be inclined to join you in your unforgiving assessment of him. Again, I don't strive to emulate Nibley's methodological example.
Maybe it is simply the case that he was being dishonest. Certainly some of his disciples have done things that I can't countenance. Of course, they are operating in a different environment and really should know better by now.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist