NOM

I just started listening this morning as I work, and it's already a must listen to. Instead of looking at the facsimiles and the scrolls, David Bokovoy is showing why the Book of Abraham is a 19th century text based on biblical scholarship.

And I'm learning new things already such as the 1834 patriarchal blessing that happens to end up in Abraham chapter 1 a year later... even though it's supposedly written by the hand of father Abraham!

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/202 ... ew-part-2/

Will post more later after I finish, but the Book of Abraham is beyond dead at this point between Hauglid, Ritner, and now Bokovoy.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:49 am

Will post more later after I finish, but the Book of Abraham is beyond dead at this point between Hauglid, Ritner, and now Bokovoy.

Yep, it's a good one. Biblical scholarship is fascinating and it is nice to see it applied in this way.

The Book of Abraham is as false as the day is long. It's kind of sad that it took me so long to see it.

It is a wonderful interview. Between Brian Hauglid's history, Robert Ritner's Egyptology, and now David Bokovoy's Biblical studies, the reasons for rejecting the BoA are so overwhelming. As David Bokovoy said, it isn't that we are unable to prove the church's claims are true, the problem is that we able to prove them false. I hope he writes his academic work on the BoA. I don't know that I will take the time to read it, but bringing all these lines of evidence together would be useful.

I'm 80 minutes in and this is great. RFM and Bokovoy share fantastic insights into scholarship, society, and of course Mormonism. Thanks all!! Bokovoy's comments about dicussions at the Church Office building with CES administrators inspired me to start the "Mormonism embraces Truth?" thread.

I also was impressed with a letter that Bokovoy wrote to some of his CES administrators that I thought was a great model for a sincere, humble interaction with people who believe differently than we do. It was about 1:00:00 into the podcast.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 05, 2020 7:49 am

And I'm learning new things already such as the 1834 patriarchal blessing that happens to end up in Abraham chapter 1 a year later... even though it's supposedly written by the hand of father Abraham!

Yeah, that is solid gold. I was amazed to hear something that significant for the first time. Even FAIR didn't have a better rebuttal than to say that it was some modern language that sneaked in there because Joseph just felt like it was a good place to stick it.

I'm reading Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament now. It is an excellent explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis. Since it was written in 2014 it also shows Bokovoy's efforts to accommodate LDS theology. I think that he was like a lot of us- trying to make a complete puzzle out of pieces that don't fit.

I finished this one today on my way home from work. His stuff on biblical authorship explains a LOT. Many of the things that confused me back when I was a member are suddenly a lot clearer when you consider that it is multiple authors and documents that have been stitched together in a patchwork that we now have.

One question: David says that the documentary theory has been around for 200 years. How much was JSjr aware of it? It was stated that some of more pronounced issues with biblical authorship were discussed in the Adam Clark commentary. How much was he aware of and what was his take on it if he did know about it?

I met David Bokovoy at Sunstone last year. He is just as pleasant in person as he sounded in the interview. And I concur with others on this thread about praise for "Authoring the Old Testament". It's a great book and easily approachable by someone without Bokovoy's academic background.