What do you think?
Rate this book
Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis–Deuteronomy
For the last two centuries, biblical scholars have made discoveries and insights about the Old Testament that have greatly changed the way in which the authorship of these ancient scriptures have been understood. In the first of three volumes spanning the entire Hebrew Bible, David Bokovoy dives into the Penateuch, showing how and why textual criticism has led biblical scholars today to understand the first five books of the Bible as an amalgamation of multiple texts into a single, though often complicated narrative; and he discusses what implications those have for Latter-day Saint understandings of the Bible and modern scripture.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
20 people are currently reading
142 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
April 18, 2014
I enjoyed the first volume of David Bokovoy’s Authoring the Old Testament quite a bit. It is a book that covers a lot of bases, and that occasionally risks becoming buried in conflicting rhetorical objectives. But the author handles the competing demands on his attention admirably, and, in the process, produces a book that does at least three things that really needed doing in the LDS community.
First, it gives a good, succinct, easily understandable outline of the “Documentary Hypothesis,” which is the predominant way that scholars and historians understand the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy in the Bible). The Documentary Hypothesis, or DH, holds that the books traditionally attributed to Moses are in fact editorial compilations of four distinct sources, or ‘”documents.” Two of them, called the Elohist (E) and the Yahwest (J) source, which were originally compiled in the courts of, respectively, Jerusalem and Samaria. The other two sources are editorial redactors who worked immediately before and after the Babylonian conquest of 587 BCE. These two redactors (or, more likely, schools of redactors), represented the two most powerful religious factions of the Judean exiles: the Priestly school (P), which focused on ritual and purity; and the Deuteronomistic school (D), which emphasized Israel’s special covenant with Yahweh and the grave sin of idol worship which, in their view, was responsible for the fall of Jerusalem.
This critical paradigm for studying the first five books of the Bible has been broadly accepted by the scholarly community, though there are certainly vigorous debates around the margins. Bokovoy wisely stays out of those debates and presents, in the first four chapters of the book, only those things that can confidently be asserted as scholarly consensus: that the texts show clear signs of multiple authorship, that many passages can be assigned to one of four broad authorial categories, and that there is no credible way to assign authorship of the Pentateuch to a single source who lived in the 14thc century BCE, a good 500 years before the language that he supposedly wrote it in even existed.
The second thing that Bokovy does is make a very compelling, and ultimately very faithful argument for why Latter-day Saints should not only tolerate, but embrace higher criticism of the Bible. Bokovoy does this throughout the book, and he dedicates one chapter (Chapter Six) to making the argument directly. As Bokovoy sees it, the LDS tradition has always acknowledged both the composite nature of the scriptures and the duty that religious people have to understand them through all available means—including the tools of higher criticism. Joseph Smith understood the Bible this way, and he commissioned a well-known Hebrew scholar of his day to tutor him in both Hebrew and biblical scholarship. While Latter-day Saints are often uncomfortable with the assumptions of Higher Criticism, they do not need to be—using these tools can be the “study” part of “even by study and also by faith.” Bokovoy makes a cogent argument here, but, even more importantly, he demonstrates that faithful higher criticism is possible by practicing it.
Finally, in the last three chapters of the book, Bokovoy tackles head-on the implications of biblical scholarship for three Mormon scriptures that claim ancient origins: the Book of Moses (part of the Joseph Smith Inspired Revision of the Bible), the Book of Abraham (separately translated by Joseph Smith from an ancient papyrus), and the Book of Mormon. Bokovoy is very direct about the challenges that higher criticism poses to these books, but he also makes very nuanced arguments about how the same higher criticism can solve some of the textual problems that it calls attention to—and how reading the with this set of tools can enrich our understanding of all of the scriptures rather than just the Hebrew Bible.
I am glad that David Bokovoy plans two more books in this series. The areas of inquiry that he opens in this book have much to offer the LDS understanding of both the Prophets and the Wisdom literature. I am also glad that both the methodological tools and the critical understanding that Bokovoy articulates are now part of the conversations that Latter-day Saints are having about the scriptures. I pray that we will have the wisdom to use them well.
First, it gives a good, succinct, easily understandable outline of the “Documentary Hypothesis,” which is the predominant way that scholars and historians understand the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy in the Bible). The Documentary Hypothesis, or DH, holds that the books traditionally attributed to Moses are in fact editorial compilations of four distinct sources, or ‘”documents.” Two of them, called the Elohist (E) and the Yahwest (J) source, which were originally compiled in the courts of, respectively, Jerusalem and Samaria. The other two sources are editorial redactors who worked immediately before and after the Babylonian conquest of 587 BCE. These two redactors (or, more likely, schools of redactors), represented the two most powerful religious factions of the Judean exiles: the Priestly school (P), which focused on ritual and purity; and the Deuteronomistic school (D), which emphasized Israel’s special covenant with Yahweh and the grave sin of idol worship which, in their view, was responsible for the fall of Jerusalem.
This critical paradigm for studying the first five books of the Bible has been broadly accepted by the scholarly community, though there are certainly vigorous debates around the margins. Bokovoy wisely stays out of those debates and presents, in the first four chapters of the book, only those things that can confidently be asserted as scholarly consensus: that the texts show clear signs of multiple authorship, that many passages can be assigned to one of four broad authorial categories, and that there is no credible way to assign authorship of the Pentateuch to a single source who lived in the 14thc century BCE, a good 500 years before the language that he supposedly wrote it in even existed.
The second thing that Bokovy does is make a very compelling, and ultimately very faithful argument for why Latter-day Saints should not only tolerate, but embrace higher criticism of the Bible. Bokovoy does this throughout the book, and he dedicates one chapter (Chapter Six) to making the argument directly. As Bokovoy sees it, the LDS tradition has always acknowledged both the composite nature of the scriptures and the duty that religious people have to understand them through all available means—including the tools of higher criticism. Joseph Smith understood the Bible this way, and he commissioned a well-known Hebrew scholar of his day to tutor him in both Hebrew and biblical scholarship. While Latter-day Saints are often uncomfortable with the assumptions of Higher Criticism, they do not need to be—using these tools can be the “study” part of “even by study and also by faith.” Bokovoy makes a cogent argument here, but, even more importantly, he demonstrates that faithful higher criticism is possible by practicing it.
Finally, in the last three chapters of the book, Bokovoy tackles head-on the implications of biblical scholarship for three Mormon scriptures that claim ancient origins: the Book of Moses (part of the Joseph Smith Inspired Revision of the Bible), the Book of Abraham (separately translated by Joseph Smith from an ancient papyrus), and the Book of Mormon. Bokovoy is very direct about the challenges that higher criticism poses to these books, but he also makes very nuanced arguments about how the same higher criticism can solve some of the textual problems that it calls attention to—and how reading the with this set of tools can enrich our understanding of all of the scriptures rather than just the Hebrew Bible.
I am glad that David Bokovoy plans two more books in this series. The areas of inquiry that he opens in this book have much to offer the LDS understanding of both the Prophets and the Wisdom literature. I am also glad that both the methodological tools and the critical understanding that Bokovoy articulates are now part of the conversations that Latter-day Saints are having about the scriptures. I pray that we will have the wisdom to use them well.
April 18, 2014
I was really excited to read this book-
It's the first I've seen combining modern Biblical scholarship (i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis) with a faithful Mormon reading of the Bible and Joseph Smith's two alternate tellings of the Creation story: The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. His views fit my preexisting views very wel - but his more extensive knowledge filled in many of the blanks for me.
As a faithful latter-day saint Bokovoy approaches Restoration scriptures with respect - he believes the books of Moses and Abraham are inspired documents conveying essential truths. He sees them as essentially pseudopygraphal works similar to the Book of Daniel or the later letters of Paul - not necessarily by the hand of the purported author, but nonetheless conveying gospel truths based on the community's needs at the time. I believe he'd be open to a hybrid approach similar to Blake Ostler's "expansionist" view of the Book of Mormon, containing both ancient and 19th century elements.
BYU's Jack Welch provided the book's forward. This is cool because Welch is an establishment religious scholar in the Church - the discoverer of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and long-time editor/director of religious scholarship for the Church. Another sign that we're opening ourselves up to modern scholarship and willing to follow the evidence (in a faithful way).
Very exciting - highly recommended to believer and non-believer alike!
It's the first I've seen combining modern Biblical scholarship (i.e., the Documentary Hypothesis) with a faithful Mormon reading of the Bible and Joseph Smith's two alternate tellings of the Creation story: The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. His views fit my preexisting views very wel - but his more extensive knowledge filled in many of the blanks for me.
As a faithful latter-day saint Bokovoy approaches Restoration scriptures with respect - he believes the books of Moses and Abraham are inspired documents conveying essential truths. He sees them as essentially pseudopygraphal works similar to the Book of Daniel or the later letters of Paul - not necessarily by the hand of the purported author, but nonetheless conveying gospel truths based on the community's needs at the time. I believe he'd be open to a hybrid approach similar to Blake Ostler's "expansionist" view of the Book of Mormon, containing both ancient and 19th century elements.
BYU's Jack Welch provided the book's forward. This is cool because Welch is an establishment religious scholar in the Church - the discoverer of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and long-time editor/director of religious scholarship for the Church. Another sign that we're opening ourselves up to modern scholarship and willing to follow the evidence (in a faithful way).
Very exciting - highly recommended to believer and non-believer alike!
August 14, 2014
Bokovoy has written THE book every Latter-day Saint should read about the Old Testament. Too often we are prone to skepticism of biblical scholarship and frequently we read the Old Testament through a haze of false assumptions reinforced by time and tradition. Bokovoy (a faithful, believing Latter-day Saint) shows that it is neither scary nor dangerous, but rather, fascinating and enlightening to embrace biblical scholarship and discard erroneous premises which impede our understanding of the text. Focusing particularly on the documentary hypotheses--the theory that the first five books of the Old Testament were not authored by Moses, but are an amalgam of various sources--Bokovoy lays out the logic of multiple authorship and its implications for the Latter-day Saint scripture such as the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham. If you are a Latter-day Saint and read one book about the Old Testament, make it this one.
April 10, 2014
This book explains so much about why the Pentateuch/Torah appears the way it does and how Mesopotamian culture (the dominant empire(s) near ancient Israel) shaped much of what we have from Genesis to Deuteronomy. I am excited to read the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible for the first time in my life (no exaggeration).
Bokovoy then explains the impact to a LDS reader. For me, this was a radical paradigm shift regarding the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. The new take on Abraham was particularly jarring to me initially; I expect that will lessen with time. Overall I feel the Biblical insights from historical criticism are greater than the potential difficulty to latter-day revelation.
Bokovoy then explains the impact to a LDS reader. For me, this was a radical paradigm shift regarding the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. The new take on Abraham was particularly jarring to me initially; I expect that will lessen with time. Overall I feel the Biblical insights from historical criticism are greater than the potential difficulty to latter-day revelation.
January 30, 2014
This book is long overdue. While much amazing research has been done on the composition of the Hebrew Bible in the last two centuries, Mormons are generally ignorant of these things and maintain a near-fundamentalist/traditional approach to the Bible.
In this volume, Bokovoy not only discusses how the first five books of the Bible came to be, but does so in a way that is accessible to Latter-day Saints. He then takes and open and honest approach in looking at the ways in which biblical research may affect LDS understandings of restoration scriptures.
In this volume, Bokovoy not only discusses how the first five books of the Bible came to be, but does so in a way that is accessible to Latter-day Saints. He then takes and open and honest approach in looking at the ways in which biblical research may affect LDS understandings of restoration scriptures.
May 2, 2014
I can tell this book will prove to have had a huge influence on how I read scripture. I have known about the Documentary hypothesis for a long time, but Bokovoy shows clearly how it works by following a few well-known Biblical stories. He then describes another common form of Near Eastern scriptural writing called pseudopygrapha, where authors ascribe their writings to someone of much higher authority to give them more credence and gain a wider audience. This was not considered unethical or dishonest. It was seen as a disciple's way of furthering an esteemed teacher or prophet's ideas. He also puts forth some interesting ideas about how revelation and inspired translation might work. He then looks at the Books of Moses, Abraham, and Mormon in light of these ideas. Fascinating, mind-blowing, and for me, faith-promoting. That is because it makes sense out of the many contradictions, anachronisms, and different versions of the same story that are found in the Bible and in Mormon scripture. He shows how scripture can be flawed and inspired, human and divine at the same time. It's OK to notice the dirty bath water, but you don't need to throw the baby out with it!
March 8, 2014
Highly recommend this to any LDS readers interested in learning more about the documentary hypothesis. Very clearly written - looking forward to reading the rest of the series as they come out.
March 27, 2015
I find Bokovoy’s work to be incredibly insightful; however, it’s not something every Latter-day Saint reader will enjoy due to its bold claims and niche subject matter.
The common theme woven throughout nearly all of Bokovoy’s work is that scripture is mostly midrashic and pseudepigraphic, rather than being literal and verbatim. If you feel that today’s LDS apologists are misguided in their complex rationalizations in response to scriptural criticism, I’d recommend this book.
Without question, The BofA, The Old Testament, and especially The BofM contain historical, literary, and archeological anachronisms. I think what typically gets misinterpreted by those studying the translation of the BofM is how Joseph Smith used the term “translate” between 1828 and 1843. For example, in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the “translation” consisted of looking at an original text and discovering a new text that was not present in the first, coming as revelation. Joseph also described receiving sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, specifically section 7, as a form of “translation”, in which case he received text and doctrinal content through a vision, and not from any manuscript or previously written source.
In the recent article “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” on LDS.org, the LDS Church provides the following statement, which brings this methodology to light: “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. 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.”
In light of how Joseph translated things like the works of Abraham, Moses, and the Old and New Testaments, Bokovoy’s pseudepigraphic arguments make perfect sense. Again, there are many who won’t find value in thinking in this framework; there are many who reject the idea that scriptural canon doesn’t have to be entirely literal and historical to be spiritually meaningful, enlightening, and valuable. And, well, that’s ok.
For me, Bokovoy offers a deep, well thought out perspective that promotes faith.
The common theme woven throughout nearly all of Bokovoy’s work is that scripture is mostly midrashic and pseudepigraphic, rather than being literal and verbatim. If you feel that today’s LDS apologists are misguided in their complex rationalizations in response to scriptural criticism, I’d recommend this book.
Without question, The BofA, The Old Testament, and especially The BofM contain historical, literary, and archeological anachronisms. I think what typically gets misinterpreted by those studying the translation of the BofM is how Joseph Smith used the term “translate” between 1828 and 1843. For example, in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the “translation” consisted of looking at an original text and discovering a new text that was not present in the first, coming as revelation. Joseph also described receiving sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, specifically section 7, as a form of “translation”, in which case he received text and doctrinal content through a vision, and not from any manuscript or previously written source.
In the recent article “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” on LDS.org, the LDS Church provides the following statement, which brings this methodology to light: “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. 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.”
In light of how Joseph translated things like the works of Abraham, Moses, and the Old and New Testaments, Bokovoy’s pseudepigraphic arguments make perfect sense. Again, there are many who won’t find value in thinking in this framework; there are many who reject the idea that scriptural canon doesn’t have to be entirely literal and historical to be spiritually meaningful, enlightening, and valuable. And, well, that’s ok.
For me, Bokovoy offers a deep, well thought out perspective that promotes faith.
October 13, 2015
See my full review here: http://www.withoutend.org/review-auth...
July 2, 2014
A very good intro/reference book, and unique in its consideration of Mormon angles. A bit clunky in places, but overall a very good and useful read!
March 9, 2018
ch1 The Pentateuch has discrepancies, contradictions, beginning with the Creation. These are clues to authorship. Legal collections make up a fair chunk.
ch2 Historical Criticism, Documentary Hypothesis. The texts we have were scribed by various Jewish groups, times, schools of thought, long after the events transpired, or the stories evolved.
ch3 Pentateuch never claims Moses is author. (author implies written record, source implies oral tradition). Sources are referred to as E, J, P, and D. see chart p71
ch4 orality vs literacy (literacy is over-represented in the index, orality is not there at all), languages evolve.
ch5 Many Christians, including LDS, believe in Bible inerrancy. I used to, but only because I did not know there was any other way to.
ch7, book of Moses as pseudepigraphy (written by someone, usually anonymously, attributed to someone else, hence "false author") Much of OT was pseudepigraphy. "A critical survey of early Christian literature, including the books that appear in the New Testament, illustrates that creating a religious text as the words of a famous Christian leader was not simply a pervasive tradition, it was the norm. The authors of many of these ancient religious texts were in many cases not who they claimed to be." In today's political and social climate, such behavior would elicit claims of "fake news", lol But that is applying contemporary judgments, through contemporary lenses, with total disregard for ancient methods and ancient reasoning, and centuries of ancient consistent practice, in other words, ignorance despite great modern knowledge.
p145-146 from Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, "Attribution "attaching names to Biblical books) belongs to the realm of literary scholarship, and has little to do with the intentions of the composers of works. It isn't so much about what an author did write, but rather it is about what he would have written (or; from the perspective of ancient literary interpreters, what he must have written)."
"If ancient prophets did not originally write certain truths within scripture, they are truths nonetheless, and studying them will edify readers. Though the attributed author may serve as a conduit by conceptually bridging dispensations together, it is not the author of the text but rather the truths of God that are sacred."
ch8 see Kevin Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources," 107-30
The method of "translation," receiving revelation, and/or inspiration described in this book and other contemporary, unfiltered by LDS leadership sources brings to mind the very intuition exercises I've been practicing and wondering about the last few years. My conditioning leads me to be suspicious and leery of seeking, finding and trusting in my *own* sense of intuition, when this is exactly what JSjr did. "Inspired Pseudepigraphon" = intuition game
ch9 Book of Mormon
p215, Conclusion. "In 2012 book The Bible and the Believer, seeding to understand the original historical context of the Bible and assessing its accuracy "allows those who take the Bible seriously to make informed judgments about its current meaning and significances (or insignificance)." see also Orsi, Between Heaven and Earth: the Religious Worlds that People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them.
p216 John Taylor JD16:369 [The LDS religion] embraces every principle of truth and intellgence pertaining to us as moral, intellectual, mortal and immortal being, pertaining to this world and the world that is to come. We are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes, where it originates or who believes it....A man in search of the truth has no particular system to sustain, no particular dogma to defend or theory to uphold.
p219 from Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament: As Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible. In other words, we are to think of the Bible in the same way that Christians think about Jesus. Christians confess that Jesus is both Bod and human at the same time. He is not half-God and half-human. He is not sometimes one and sometimes the other. He is not essentially one and apparently the other...Jesus is 100% God and 100% human--at the same time. This way of thinking of Christ is analogous to thinking about the Bible. In the same way that Jesus is--must be-- both God and human the Bible is also a divine and human book.
He also pulls from E England's "Why the church is as true as the gospel," in a way that not only describes situated knowledge, but situated expression as well.
(I'm surprised at how terrible the index is, considering the expertise and precision that went into preparing the manuscript. They should have left it un-indexed rather than include the overly simply concordance that they did put in.)
ch2 Historical Criticism, Documentary Hypothesis. The texts we have were scribed by various Jewish groups, times, schools of thought, long after the events transpired, or the stories evolved.
ch3 Pentateuch never claims Moses is author. (author implies written record, source implies oral tradition). Sources are referred to as E, J, P, and D. see chart p71
ch4 orality vs literacy (literacy is over-represented in the index, orality is not there at all), languages evolve.
ch5 Many Christians, including LDS, believe in Bible inerrancy. I used to, but only because I did not know there was any other way to.
ch7, book of Moses as pseudepigraphy (written by someone, usually anonymously, attributed to someone else, hence "false author") Much of OT was pseudepigraphy. "A critical survey of early Christian literature, including the books that appear in the New Testament, illustrates that creating a religious text as the words of a famous Christian leader was not simply a pervasive tradition, it was the norm. The authors of many of these ancient religious texts were in many cases not who they claimed to be." In today's political and social climate, such behavior would elicit claims of "fake news", lol But that is applying contemporary judgments, through contemporary lenses, with total disregard for ancient methods and ancient reasoning, and centuries of ancient consistent practice, in other words, ignorance despite great modern knowledge.
p145-146 from Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, "Attribution "attaching names to Biblical books) belongs to the realm of literary scholarship, and has little to do with the intentions of the composers of works. It isn't so much about what an author did write, but rather it is about what he would have written (or; from the perspective of ancient literary interpreters, what he must have written)."
"If ancient prophets did not originally write certain truths within scripture, they are truths nonetheless, and studying them will edify readers. Though the attributed author may serve as a conduit by conceptually bridging dispensations together, it is not the author of the text but rather the truths of God that are sacred."
ch8 see Kevin Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources," 107-30
The method of "translation," receiving revelation, and/or inspiration described in this book and other contemporary, unfiltered by LDS leadership sources brings to mind the very intuition exercises I've been practicing and wondering about the last few years. My conditioning leads me to be suspicious and leery of seeking, finding and trusting in my *own* sense of intuition, when this is exactly what JSjr did. "Inspired Pseudepigraphon" = intuition game
ch9 Book of Mormon
p215, Conclusion. "In 2012 book The Bible and the Believer, seeding to understand the original historical context of the Bible and assessing its accuracy "allows those who take the Bible seriously to make informed judgments about its current meaning and significances (or insignificance)." see also Orsi, Between Heaven and Earth: the Religious Worlds that People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them.
p216 John Taylor JD16:369 [The LDS religion] embraces every principle of truth and intellgence pertaining to us as moral, intellectual, mortal and immortal being, pertaining to this world and the world that is to come. We are open to truth of every kind, no matter whence it comes, where it originates or who believes it....A man in search of the truth has no particular system to sustain, no particular dogma to defend or theory to uphold.
p219 from Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament: As Christ is both God and human, so is the Bible. In other words, we are to think of the Bible in the same way that Christians think about Jesus. Christians confess that Jesus is both Bod and human at the same time. He is not half-God and half-human. He is not sometimes one and sometimes the other. He is not essentially one and apparently the other...Jesus is 100% God and 100% human--at the same time. This way of thinking of Christ is analogous to thinking about the Bible. In the same way that Jesus is--must be-- both God and human the Bible is also a divine and human book.
He also pulls from E England's "Why the church is as true as the gospel," in a way that not only describes situated knowledge, but situated expression as well.
(I'm surprised at how terrible the index is, considering the expertise and precision that went into preparing the manuscript. They should have left it un-indexed rather than include the overly simply concordance that they did put in.)
March 19, 2022
Both insightful and yet evasive.
From the book:
A critical survey of early Christian literature including the books that appear in the New testament illustrates that creating a religious text as the words of a famous Christian leader was not simply a pervasive tradition, it was the norm. The authors of many of these ancient religious texts were in many cases not who they claim to be. Attributing a literary work to another person who held an important religious role such as a prophet or apostle elevated the religious status of the document as sacred literature.
With the introduction to the book of Abraham as an inspired translation it could be understood to be not a description of what Abraham literally wrote, but instead as a description of what Abraham would have written if given the chance.
It seems clear that Joseph believed he was producing a literal translation of the papyra he possessed. We should not assume however that the prophet fully understood the revelatory process in which he was engaged.
From the book:
A critical survey of early Christian literature including the books that appear in the New testament illustrates that creating a religious text as the words of a famous Christian leader was not simply a pervasive tradition, it was the norm. The authors of many of these ancient religious texts were in many cases not who they claim to be. Attributing a literary work to another person who held an important religious role such as a prophet or apostle elevated the religious status of the document as sacred literature.
With the introduction to the book of Abraham as an inspired translation it could be understood to be not a description of what Abraham literally wrote, but instead as a description of what Abraham would have written if given the chance.
It seems clear that Joseph believed he was producing a literal translation of the papyra he possessed. We should not assume however that the prophet fully understood the revelatory process in which he was engaged.
December 24, 2019
For Latter-Day Saints who thoughtfully engage the LDS Cannon, this book provides a framework for navigating the many anachronisms and difficulties resulting from the historical inaccuracies emanating from the LDS cannon. Though in my opinion it does little to solve the more troubling aspects of the Pearl of Great Price/Book of Mormon, the ultimate value of the book seems to be summarized in the conclusion: “Ultimately, scripture finds its spiritual worth in the process of actualization, bringing something from the past into the present...From the Book of Mormon to the Books of Moses and Abraham, Joesph’s scriptural texts were designed to actualize the Bible in the lives of Latter-Day Saints.”
January 25, 2024
Enlightening Faithful Bridge
Context: the analytical method of Higher Criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis are new-to-me constructs. I’m a first time reader regarding such.
Opinion regarding the book: David Bokovoy’s creation is impressively elucidating of and faithful to the method and to the notion of revelation i.e., God making known Truth and truth to humankind.
The content inspires thought-full faith. It draws upon and develops a gift / talent / skill to think. And it draws upon and develops a gift / talent / skill to believe.
An apt summarization: Truth no matter whence its source.
Context: the analytical method of Higher Criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis are new-to-me constructs. I’m a first time reader regarding such.
Opinion regarding the book: David Bokovoy’s creation is impressively elucidating of and faithful to the method and to the notion of revelation i.e., God making known Truth and truth to humankind.
The content inspires thought-full faith. It draws upon and develops a gift / talent / skill to think. And it draws upon and develops a gift / talent / skill to believe.
An apt summarization: Truth no matter whence its source.
October 10, 2019
Lots of eye opening information to ponder. Furthers my understanding of the ridiculousness of religions and gives me a better understanding of how we came to the point of adopting these ideas as "truth". Completely new perspective on looking at these works. I did find that I can have some appreciation for them as literature as opposed to gospel.
September 30, 2018
This was...okay. The first few chapters were pretty solid and I appreciated the clear and concise explanations about Higher Criticism. But once the book dived into the Book of Abraham, I found his arguments to be rambling and rather stretched.
January 23, 2019
An excellent book for reading the scriptures with a more academic lens. David walks you through the documentary hypothesis and leads you to a greater understanding of the nature of the first five books of the Bible.
December 5, 2018
His last two chapters were less well structured than the rest of the text - however, he is treading new territory there so it makes sense. Looking forward to the next book in this series.
January 28, 2019
Bokovoy is a guilty pleasure - I'll take any excuse to hear him present - and this was a gem. Lots to unpack here. I'll be at it for ages. Eye-opening.
November 2, 2019
LookLoomllMmkOh mmm
Looking I’m
L
looms ml
Ok
Ok oil
Moo
Thanks o
Maybe m
On ominous
L
Thanks o
Olo
Thanks m
Looking I’m
L
looms ml
Ok
Ok oil
Moo
Thanks o
Maybe m
On ominous
L
Thanks o
Olo
Thanks m
May 26, 2022
A topic in which little scholarship has been done and a significant step in helping LDS reconcile modern scholarship with their faith, even if I am more conservative about historicity than he was.
January 8, 2025
8/10
Learned a lot
Learned a lot
March 1, 2016
"Who Wrote the Bible" was one of my top 10 most influential books of all time, when I decided to write that list up for my personal blog, so I'm not unfamiliar with the basics of the Documentary Hypothesis. This book, therefore, I was reading for mostly the author's commentary on what the Documentary Hypothesis, if it is true (and I bet that it is), means for Mormon scripture. I found that portion of the book interesting, even if I don't think that I completely agree with his conclusions. I did find the first portion of the book, wherein he explains the Documentary Hypothesis, a bit condescending and pedantic. Bokovoy thinks that it's so obvious that the DH is true that his rhetoric gets a bit heated at times, and that I think is a weakness of the book. In that sense I think the first half is a bit of a missed opportunity, because of the wealth of similar situations that occur in uniquely Mormon scripture that would enable a good teacher to explain the DH in terms that Mormons would understand. Bokovoy does so, but poorly in a few places.
However, once he moves beyond that discussion to the implications of the DH, I think the book is much more interesting. I think I'm with him as far as his understanding of the Book of Moses. The discussion of the Book of Abraham was less convincing to me, but my saying so is no criticism of Bokovoy. We simply interpret the data differently on that point, but I am glad for his good elucidation of what some call "The Catalyst Theory" for the Book of Abraham, because even if I disagree with it, it needs to be well elucidated. It was, here, in my opinion.
For LDS who haven't really gotten into Biblical Studies and the study of the Hebrew Bible, this book is a great way to get your feet wet, despite a few minor tonal issues.
However, once he moves beyond that discussion to the implications of the DH, I think the book is much more interesting. I think I'm with him as far as his understanding of the Book of Moses. The discussion of the Book of Abraham was less convincing to me, but my saying so is no criticism of Bokovoy. We simply interpret the data differently on that point, but I am glad for his good elucidation of what some call "The Catalyst Theory" for the Book of Abraham, because even if I disagree with it, it needs to be well elucidated. It was, here, in my opinion.
For LDS who haven't really gotten into Biblical Studies and the study of the Hebrew Bible, this book is a great way to get your feet wet, despite a few minor tonal issues.
July 29, 2017
This book was awesome. If you have never heard of the DH - the Documentary Hypothesis, this book will explain it in a way that is convincing. Bokovoy is a colleague and a great writer. I hope he does part 2. If you want to understand the Old Testament in a way that you have not before considered, and you have an open mind, this book is for you. I also have loved other books by Richard Friedman as well that demonstrate that the Old Testament is a work of many scribes or "schools", many of which have divergent views on God, salvation, temple worship, to name a few.
I did a write up on some of these issues that you can see here:
1. Conflicting views of God in the Bible: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
2. Monolatry in the Old Testament: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
3. Whose staff is it anyway? https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
4. A rivalry between the House of Aaron and the Levites: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The arguments for the DH become persuasive once you really start looking at the text for what it is, and David Bokovoy really lays this out in a way that is understandable for a "normal" audience. This is one of my favorite books.
I did a write up on some of these issues that you can see here:
1. Conflicting views of God in the Bible: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
2. Monolatry in the Old Testament: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
3. Whose staff is it anyway? https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
4. A rivalry between the House of Aaron and the Levites: https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/201...
The arguments for the DH become persuasive once you really start looking at the text for what it is, and David Bokovoy really lays this out in a way that is understandable for a "normal" audience. This is one of my favorite books.
March 2, 2015
I read the book because I wanted to be in a better position to explain the Documentary Hypothesis and historical criticism to other Latter-day Saints. Specifically, I wanted to be able to present the ideas surrounding the Documentary Hypothesis in a way that would not seem hostile to open-minded but orthodox Mormons. In many ways, this book succeeds in achieving this end. It uses, where possible, parallels between the development of Latter-day Saint scripture and the Hebrew Bible to make the findings of modern Biblical criticism less frightening. I strongly recommend this book to Latter-day Saint readers interested in the history and authorship of the Pentateuch. On this other hand, it clear that David Bokovoy adopts a very different way of reading the Bible than that with which most Mormons are familiar and this way of reading is often not explained or justified as well as it could be.
May 4, 2014
David Bokovoy is a solid scholar of the Hebrew Bible and a believing member of the LDS Church. This book represents his best effort at presenting the fruits of his education to his fellow Church members in order to help them better understand and appreciate the Old Testament. Members of the Church will be brought up to speed on a century of biblical scholarship they've likely never heard about before. Readers don't need to agree with everything in the book in order to make it worth reading. At the very least, Bokovoy stretches the boundaries of acceptable ways for Mormons to religiously but critically engage with our books of scripture.
I'll put a full review together soon.
I'll put a full review together soon.
February 5, 2023
The book provided a good introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis, which has opened my eyes to the world of the bible. The book then uses the same process of higher criticism to turn to the LDS scriptures, illustrating some of the challenges that this presents to traditional interpretations of these text. All this was very interesting, but I was left feeling that the author had more to say. Maybe he was holding back for the two other books that he promised.
April 9, 2015
If you want a scholarly understanding of how the Old Testament came to be, but you are not a trained scholar, this book is for you. David does an excellent work in explaining complicated issues in a way that normal people can understand how the Old Testament came to be. I cannot wait for part 2 to become available. Keep writing David!
July 1, 2015
I'm so glad I read this book. A great stepping off point for further understanding of the Bible. The last part about connecting it to LDS scripture got a little over my head sometimes, but still very interesting.
February 8, 2018
A must-read for all thoughtful Mormons interested in the nature and origins of scripture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews