- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham No earth shattering revelations to be had in this one. I don’t think it treats the subject adequately but perhaps it’s meant for people that only have a superficial, passing interest in the BoA issues.
I really like the fact that it includes, explicitly, the possibility that it is a revelation and not a literal translation. I like that it doesn’t say or even imply that there is one true way to view it, except that it is accepted as scripture by the Church. There is that isn’t there. From the conclusion: Quote:The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.
I think the veracity of the book
canbe settled by scholarly debate, at least to some degree. I do agree that the valueof the book cannot be settled by scholarly debate but people can still have a debate over what value, if any, the BoA holds for them personally. Quote:The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys.
I like how the focus shifts to the most important thing being things that are eternal truths and their ability to convey the spirit.
Wasn’t that nice of the Church. I was just wondering this morning about the essay process. I tend wonder when it slows down if they are finished. Low and behold they answer my question just like that. Builds a girls faith 
After a rapid fire, quick perusal I conclude that this essay gives me talking points toward believers. There is no way that anyone who has already thrown The Book of Abraham off the shelf is going to pick it up again. That decision is done. This essay won’t turn that around. However, there are many quotable and instructive lines in it, to help people in crisis be able to explain some of their confusion and pain. It is also useful for lessons to be used as a buffer before discussion – hopefully making room for doubters to feel some degree of breathing room on the topic. For that, on cursory read, I applaud the job done. :clap: I totally forgot about that benefit to having an essay on lds.org. Thanks for the reminder. nibbler wrote:There is that isn’t there. From the conclusion:
Quote:The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.
I think the veracity of the book
canbe settled by scholarly debate, at least to some degree. I do agree that the valueof the book cannot be settled by scholarly debate but people can still have a debate over what value, if any, the BoA holds for them personally. Quote:The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys.
I like how the focus shifts to the most important thing being things that are eternal truths and their ability to convey the spirit.
I was struck by this in the conclusion as well. By this criteria the Gettysburg Address would qualify as scripture. Sorry to be snarky but the authors put up a lot of foot notes before saying it can’t be settled by scholarly debate. Enough of the footnotes towards the end of the piece are from FARMS and that makes it a little suspect to me. Scholarship is one thing and apologetics is sometimes another.
Boa is one of my big issues and reading the essay doesn’t help (doesn’t make it worse either). For me it’s still one of the things that just doesn’t make sense. JS saying he translated when he didn’t. The whole grammar book thing that clearly is not correct Egyptian. The facsimiles etc etc. Aaaargh. But nice to see that the church is still making essays though! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can’t say I learned anything new from the essay, and agree that it is a bit apologetic in nature (perhaps more so than some of the others). I do like that there is a clear statement that the translation is not a direct translation and is more like the BoM translation. I’m still not ready to embrace the BoA and I can live with that – there’s plenty of other scripture. I do like that there is an essay about it and hope the church continues to publish them. I do like the idea that they give different theories about how the work came about. It was essentially “We don’t know for sure – but here are some possibilities.”
This is pretty smart in that it allows people that want to be in the direct translation camp to stay there (i.e. only small fragments have survived – maybe JS translated from a different portion) and gives some sense of shelter to those that need to believe in a more revelatory/catalystic process (i.e. maybe the pictures just got Joseph’s mind working until the eyes of his understanding became open).
Quote:Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be
authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.28 Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose.29 Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure. {Snip}
Quote:Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34
What does the term “Authentic” bolded above refer to? Does Authentic mean that the story of Abraham is actually contained in the scrolls? Does the second paragraph have any bearing on the word authentic? In other words, if the translation was more of a revelation that had little to do with the actual writing on the scrolls – would the BofA still meet the definition of “Authentic?” Why or why not?
I also noticed that the possibility that the BofA is not at all related to a historical Abraham but is rather more of inspired fiction or parable or midrash is not included.
I wonder if this is a possible definition for their use of the term “authentic”… If the BofA accurately related events of Abraham’s life from 5,000ish years ago (something that could never be proven [just as it could never be proven that the story of Star Wars is not an accurate depiction of events from long ago in a galaxy far far away)] would it be authentic?
Or is authenticity divorced from accuracy? A civil war soldier’s diary may be authentic while being inaccurate about dates and recollections of certain events.
According to the following link a historical novel can be authentic while taking huge liberties with historical facts if it gives the reader a good feel or overview of the time period.
http://schradershistoricalfiction.blogspot.com/2013/12/authenticity-vs-accuracy-historical.html Which one of these definitions would we be using to call the BofA “authentic?”
Maybe I’m just overthinking this. It seems that the word “authentic” can be as slippery as the word “true.”
Roy wrote:Which one of these definitions would we be using to call the BofA “authentic?”
Given the context of the sentence and paragraph I’d say that particular use of the word “authentic” is meant to address the issue that people have with the statement that the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham.
Quote:…the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham…
Meaning, we know that the papyri cannot be dated back to the time of Abraham. Then they launch into a description of how a document can be a copy or a copy of copies. So I take “authentic” to mean writings that Abraham himself inked.
FWIW an article on the new essay just hit the Washington PostI don’t know how much exposure the person that wrote the article has with the church but it will be interesting to see how the essay will be interpreted by people that don’t have a LDS background or a background where they are already familiar with the issues.
I liked the essay. The very fact that the church is even talking about the potential problems is awesome. I don’t begrudge them a little apologetics. I think this essay like many of the others will probably help push some members out while helping other to stay for now, but the overall effect will be that it at least puts something out there for the church to say that they have addressed the issue. I don’t think for a minute that any of the essays will help garnish any new converts. They are weak at best and causes as many questions as they answer but again at least the church is acknowledging that there are some issues. Potential effects aside, I simply like the fact that the essays are honest and historically accurate. That is significant and ought to be celebrated, imo.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.