For the week 10 blog post, read the Book of Abraham passed out in class (which you could also find online I'm sure). Then discuss how you might go about assessing a document like this. Are there any fine points in this text that lead you to think it is not from the supposed time of Abraham (2000BC?). In studying religion we have been surrounded by all kinds of claims about the world, and I am curious if there is any kind of critical approach that you can define through a discussion of this text.
Alright, so I admit that my title is a little bit tongue-in-cheek. But a little reading up on wikipedia does give an impression at least of one does not know. Here's what I mean:
I read the Book of Abraham, with a critical mindset of course - that is, not taking its authenticity for granted. In fact, because of our assignment, I was specifically searching for indications that the book is not in fact written by Abraham. The book has some differences to the Hebrew Bible, including the near sacrificing of Abraham by the Egyptians, Abraham's priesthood, and the details of astronomy laid out in the third chapter. But all of these did not seem impossible - after all, Mormon's claim that the Bible has been corrupted, so these discrepancies could just as well be errors on that side as in the Book of Abraham. The one anachronism that jumped out at me was in Chapter 2, Verse 11: "...even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal." That sounds very much like the New Testament, and I don't know how Abraham could have had knowledge of the Gospel. It was devine revelation, but in that case, I would still wonder how and whether the knowledge of the Gospel so early in history would have influenced the Isrealites.
After reading the article, I perused what others had written, and saw mostly very strong opposition to any claims of authenticity (which may have been due to reading an unfortunate selection of blogs). While I don't have a problem with strong positions per se, I do think that one needs to realize how much is involved and how much one really knows (I am guilty of ignoring this myself rather frequently). When I went to the wikipedia article, I saw the most common criticisms listed - but also Mormon apologetic responses.
I was not convinced by their responses, but I think that, when arguing about the historical authenticity of a text, it would be wise to include the proponents in the discussion. If I were to write a public, strong statement against a specific religious (or other historical) text, I would first want to read both what others have criticized and how it has been defended.
I'm loving your critical reading of these texts. There is a common assertion that Christianity, as we know it, started with Christ's birth. As Christians, however, we also, seemingly in conflict with that idea, believe in divine creation, and communication between God and the prophets of the old testament. It is also common to speak of God as unchangeable, the same yesterday and today. Given these ideas, among others, is it worth considering that, perhaps, the Gospel plan, the priesthood, and the law of heaven existed prior to Christ's birth? If these prophets indeed received revelatory information from on high, then Abraham's statement is not anachronistic, but simply evidence of an eternal, unchanging gospel plan. I bet you are loving this class.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course! I never think of Christianity as beginning at Christ - since we view the Israelites as worshiping the true God and Christ as the central truth that everything else was foreshadowing. And of course, prophesy is central to that. My question was what effect knowledge of the Gospel at the time of Abraham would have had on the people of Israel.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I chose this class because it looked like I could use what I learned from the diversity class here :).
*snicker* Diversity Class . . .
ReplyDelete