Heavenly Ascents » Book of Abraham

The Bird as Angel of the Lord in Book of Abraham Facs. 1 (Old Testament Lesson 7)

David Larsen — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:00:33 +0000

For anyone hoping that this post was going to be about the Abrahamic Covenant, I hate to let you down. Upon reading the first chapters of the Book of Abraham, my attention was drawn (as it often is) again to the “Facsimiles” that accompany that book, which are a frequent source of wonder and awe to young (and old) Latter-day Saint readers. While perhaps not as mesmerizing and mystifying as Facs. 2, the first facsimile has one figure in particular that begs for some analysis.

In the narrative of the Abraham 1, we are told that this image is included by Abraham to illustrate the situation in which he found himself — ready to be sacrificed by the priest of Elkanah/Pharaoh on the “bedstead” altar, which was like the one depicted. He is turned over to the idolatrous priest by his “fathers”, whom he had tried to convince to give up their idol worship. However, just before he is sacrificed (in a scene reminiscent of the sacrifice of Isaac), Abraham tells us that the angel of the Lord’s presence comes to save him, unlooses his bands and (after an extended dialogue) smites the priest of Elkanah. What is particularly significant in this dialogue is that the angel of the presence announces himself to be Jehovah (whom most Bible readers would not consider to be the oft-mentioned “angel of the presence” of the Old Testament).¹

So Jehovah came down as an angel (remember angel = malak = messenger) to save Abraham. This is so reminiscent of ancient kingship rituals in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and likely also Israel (see, for example, Psalm 18, among others), but that is another post. However, when you look at the Facsimile, the figure (Fig. 1) that Joseph Smith identifies as “The Angel of the Lord” is a bird! Why, you may ask, is the angel of the Lord — Jehovah himself, no less — depicted as, or equated with, a bird?

Well, although I pose it as an exasperating conundrum, the equation of a divine being with a bird should not be very surprising. The Holy Ghost, for example, is commonly represented by a dove. Anciently, it was quite common to employ this imagery to depict different gods. Very pertinent to our facsimile is the ancient Egyptian tradition of depicting the savior god Horus as a hawk. As BYU professor James Harris notes, the bird in this facsimile (in its wider Egyptian context) likely does not represent the “ba“-bird, but “Horus (the hawk) who delivered his father Osiris from death just as a personage represented by a hawk delivered Abraham from death.”²

(Just for fun, compare the above image to Abr. 1:18)

While we may expect, then, an ancient Egyptian pictogram to depict a god as a bird, we can consider it rather odd that Joseph Smith would have so readily made the connection, especially since this association is not made clear in the text (nor is it common in Christianity to depict the Father or Son as a bird). Now what would be even more interesting is if their were some other evidence specifically linking the story of Abraham to an image of Jehovah/Yahweh as a bird.

And we do find such an association in the Slavonic text of the Apocalypse of Abraham. Although we know it only from Old Slavonic Christian translations made in approx. the 15th century AD, scholars believe that the original was likely written in Hebrew in Palestine around the 1st century. We know that the text became popular among many early Christians (who ended up being the only ones who preserved it).

In the Apocalypse of Abraham (ApAb), after an extended sequence in which Abraham rejects and destroys the idols of his father, Abraham seeks the true God, the Creator of all things. God answers Abraham and sends to him the “angel of his presence.” This angel is called Iaoel/Jaoel or “Yahoel”– which was likely meant to be “Yahweh-El”. The angel is called Iaoel “of the same name” (10:3), probably meaning that his name was understood to be the same as God’s (Yahweh). The text describes this angel as being “in the likeness of a man” (10:4). 11:2-4 describe him as having a body like sapphire, a face like chrysolite, and hair like snow—a description which reminds us of the anthropomorphic Glory of God described in the Old Testament and many pseudepigraphal texts. He is described as having a turban, purple robes, and golden staff, which recall a royal/high priestly figure. So far, this seems like a pretty standard (albeit notably anthropomorphic) description of Yahweh/the Angel of Yahweh.

But what about the bird connection? Dr. Andrei Orlov notes that Kulik’s translation of ApAb includes a detail which Rubinkiewicz’ is missing: the rendering of the Slavonic word “ногуего,” as “griffin” (“the appearance of the griffin’s body was like sapphire,…”). According to Orlov, the author depicted Yahoel as both man and bird.³

Ascent of Yahoel and Abraham -- my thanks to Jeffrey Bradshaw for this image

However, Margaret Barker provides abundant evidence that this indeed was the ancient understanding, see her The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville: W/JKP, 1992).
James R. Harris, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham” in Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, accessed online at http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/17396?highlight=1, on Feb. 11, 2010.
Andrei Orlov, “The Pteromorphic Angelology of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” CBQ 71 (2009) 830–42.

In God’s Image and Likeness: An Interview with Author Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Part III

David Larsen — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:53:51 +0000

This is the third installment of a multi-part interview between myself and Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, author of the recently released In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. For previous posts in this series, see Part I here and Part II here.

Please see the official website for the book for more details: http://www.imageandlikeness.net

Questions for Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on In God’s Image and Likeness (cont.)

[David] In the book, you give us the text of Moses 1-6 along with analysis and commentary. Is this text taken directly from our current version of the Pearl of Great Price or is it derived from other sources?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’ve taken the version from the published Pearl of Great Price as my base text, while making a point to discuss significant textual variations.

Two recent studies have been particularly helpful. With painstaking effort over a period of eight years, and with the generous cooperation of the Community of Christ, a facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Original Manuscripts). A detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses appeared in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses). Taken together, these studies allow us to see the process and results of translation with greater clarity than ever before.

[David]In your introduction, you give some words of advice or caution to your readers when using the various extra-canonical (apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, midrashic, etc.) texts that are available to us and that you use in your book. How do you think readers should approach these texts and what caution should be used in weighing their possible authenticity, legitimacy, or level of “inspiration”?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] Such sources present a special problem because in so many cases the age and provenance of these writings are uncertain. Moreover, the motivations of the (frequently anonymous) authors, and the historical and prophetic basis of their compositions usually remain in doubt. Stephen E. Robinson, for one, has noted the difficulties in distinguishing between inspired literature (i.e., historical or revelatory writings akin to canonical scripture), inspired fiction (i.e., stories designed to teach doctrinal principles such as Elder Boyd K. Packer’s parable The Mediator), and outright “lying for the Lord” (i.e., pseudonymous forgeries that deceitfully present themselves as authoritative in order to promulgate self-serving interpretations). All that being said, it is always possible that documents of even very doubtful provenance may contain fragments of authentic accounts transmitted from ancient times.

Nickelsburg wisely phrased the careful stance of scholarly ambivalence that must be maintained: “One should not simply posit what is convenient with the claim that later texts reflected earlier tradition. At the same time, thoroughgoing skepticism is inconsonant with the facts as we know them and as new discoveries continue to reveal them: extant texts represent only a fragment of the written and oral tradition that once existed. Caution, honest scholarly tentativeness, and careful methodology remain the best approach to the data” (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Judaism, pp. 25-26).

In my introduction, I freely admit that I deliberately erred on the side of inclusion in considering these texts for use in the commentary. This was done to make these documents available to a wider set of readers for discussion, and I’m hoping that these evaluations will lead to many improvements in future editions of the book.

[David] A related question: To what extent should we feel comfortable comparing some of these texts, e.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Testament of Moses, 1 Enoch, or The Life of Adam and Eve, to the Moses (or Abraham) material revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith? At first look, these texts would seem to cover similar ground, but from your experience, is there much compatibility between them?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] LDS scholars have long noted many similarities between the revelations and translations of Joseph Smith and ancient Jewish and Christian documents. Most of the more difficult work needed to transform these “parallels” into “bridges” demonstrating how related ideas from widely-scattered cultures and diverse eras could have been shared and transmitted has yet to be done.

In assembling this volume, I have also been interested in ancient texts from outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that the Lord pointedly told Nephi: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Nephi 29:12). In light of this fact, it should not be at all surprising if genuinely revealed teachings, promulgated at one time but subsequently lost or distorted, sometimes appear to have survived in heterodox strands of religious traditions the world over. Many of these teachings have served, in the words of the First Presidency, to “enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals” (S. W. Kimball, et al., God’s Love). Nor, it seems, could the Lord’s purposes have been achieved in any other way. As Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people” (O. F. Whitney, Discourse (April 1928), p. 59). Thus, in our search for truth, we must, as Charlesworth expressed, “be attuned critically to all possible sources of revelation,” including “the word from God that has been heard by the great thinkers, inspired poets, and musicians” (J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84).

[David] What are some of the dangers we must be aware of when comparing modern LDS Scripture to ancient documents?

I like what Gary Gillum writes about the dangers of the two extremes of those who either eschew such writings or else develop an unhealthy obsession with them (G. P. Gillum, Bibliography). While recognizing the ease with which any of us can be led astray when our enthusiasm outstrips our understanding, he also argues that “even as we should be prepared and open to personal revelation, so should we be ready and eager to learn from additional truths which may confirm our fundamental beliefs. Perhaps these apocryphal discoveries are mere preparations for more divine writings to be given us later.” Revealing the principle governing his own stance, he writes that “whatever I read as apocrypha, in the very general sense, must not lead me farther afield, but back to the divine word of God.”

[David] This question is purely to satisfy my own curiosity. You mention in an endnote that we do not have all of what Joseph Smith translated for the Book of Abraham. While what we have in the Pearl of Great Price can be read in about a half hour, what Joseph originally translated took about two hours to read. Do you know what happened to the rest of the manuscript Joseph produced?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’m also very curious about this question. I am hopeful that there may be additional portions of the book of Abraham that may come to light once the relevant volume from the Joseph Smith Papers project is published.

Post Author’s Note: Since conducting this interview, I have spoken to some of the individuals involved in the above project and it does appear that this is indeed the case. We should have more of the Book of Abraham available to us soon.

To Be Continued…

Some Notes about the Apocalypse of Abraham

David Larsen — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:15:06 +0000

As you may have noted, unfortunately I have not had the time to post as much as I would like to here on Heavenly Ascents. I have been bogged down with multiple papers and presentations for my classes which have taken up most of my time. I would like, however, to share with you some notes from one of the presentations I did for my Apocalyptic Literature class on the Apocalypse of Abraham.

The Apocalypse of Abraham is an ancient Jewish document (likely written in the first century AD) that was eventually preserved and passed down by Christian hands. Today we only have access to it through the Slavonic (Slavic) manuscripts kept by the Russian Orthodox church for centuries. It only became known in Western circles towards the latter half of the 19th century. In fact, the first English translation of this text appeared in the Improvement Era (an LDS publication) in 1898. The LDS Church obviously had an interest in this text because of its many similarities to their own Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith had translated from some Egyptian papyri that he had obtained in the 1830s. Interestingly, the Apocalypse of Abraham has many parallels with the Book of Moses as well.

I am providing you with a link here to the notes I made for use in my presentation. Unfortunately, not all of the information I gathered is particularly interesting, as my assignment was to present the “State of the Question,” an analysis of current scholarly opinion on the text, with emphasis on its origin, dating, and other technical issues. Towards the end, I did note some theological themes in the text that would be of interest to our class. So, for whatever it’s worth, I give you my notes. If you have any further questions on them, please feel free to ask me. Here is the link:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9gpgs4_2gqzqcnfc