Abraham in an Egyptian funeral text?

[VEL]

All of the papyri Joseph Smith and his companions worked with were funerary literature, spells for the dead. There never was a roll that contained the story of Abraham in conventional hieroglyphs. Joseph Smith translated in a manner not known to human mind in our present way of thinking. It was pure revelation and the papyri with all its characters, images, and suggestive reasoning was merely a vehicle in which to excite the mind and prepare it for the Egyptian experience in which the prophet ventured.

Joseph Smith's own actions and words betray this idea of the papyrus being just a catalyst.

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients" (Joseph Smith, July, 1835, History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238).

Why even create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar if it wasn't even Egyptian he was translating? So obviously Joseph Smith was completely unaware of your catalyst theory.

Why would God use Pagan Funerary text as a vehicle for his word?? God has the Levites slaughter thousands for worshipping a golden calf but sends his holy words and teachings through Pagan texts about Pagan Gods and how to survive in the afterlife?? That doesn't make any sense.

Why would JS even need a catalyst?? He has the Seer Stone that he used for the BOM. He didn't use the actual Gold Plates for "translating" so why would he all of a sudden need Pagan texts??

[Guest The Headless Laban]

All of the papyri Joseph Smith and his companions worked with were funerary literature, spells for the dead. There never was a roll that contained the story of Abraham in conventional hieroglyphs. Joseph Smith translated in a manner not known to human mind in our present way of thinking. It was pure revelation and the papyri with all its characters, images, and suggestive reasoning was merely a vehicle in which to excite the mind and prepare it for the Egyptian experience in which the prophet ventured.

Joseph Smith's own actions and words betray this idea of the papyrus being just a catalyst.

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients" (Joseph Smith, July, 1835, History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238).

Why even create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar if it wasn't even Egyptian he was translating? So obviously Joseph Smith was completely unaware of your catalyst theory.

Why would God use Pagan Funerary text as a vehicle for his word?? God has the Levites slaughter thousands for worshipping a golden calf but sends his holy words and teachings through Pagan texts about Pagan Gods and how to survive in the afterlife?? That doesn't make any sense.

Why would JS even need a catalyst?? He has the Seer Stone that he used for the BOM. He didn't use the actual Gold Plates for "translating" so why would he all of a sudden need Pagan texts??

Yeah. The catalysy theory is a major stretch because, as you point out, based on Joseph's own words he wasn't aware of it. He thought he was literally transating egyptian. Why would he need an Egyptian spell book to get revelation from God? He wrote over 130 revelations which were canonized as real revelations in the D&C without the need for such a catalyst. He did not need a catalyst to write the Book of Moses. Joseph also made a ton of statements regarding his theological beliefs which were never canonized as scripture. Bottom line is, Joseph did not need anything to "excite his mind" to religious matters. He was overly excited to the point where much of his opinions and speculation were later written off as mere opinion. Why would God continue to confuse the issue by tricking him into translating Egyptian Funeral books, and making him believe he was translating Abraham's scrolls and make a fool of himself by loudly telling everyone within earshot that he was translating Egyptian scrolls written by Abraham? The catalyst theory makes no sense.

[alienward]

Only a portion of what FARMS does is "apologetic."

In Mormonism

[Guest Just Curious]

It is fairly simple, there are 3 facsimilies in the BoA...exactly how many non-LDS egyptian scholars have translated those 3 facsimilies to read the same translation that Joseph Smith says....uh let's see...that would be exactly NONE, 0, not a single one...how many LDS scholars that are trained in translating egyptian have come up with the same translation as Joseph for those 3 facsimilies...anyone care to guess...please???

[Daniel Peterson]

Only a portion of what FARMS does is "apologetic."

In Mormonism

[Daniel Peterson]

It is fairly simple

Actually, it's not.

Though I can easily understand how much simpler things might seem if one were unaware of the issues.

[Paul Osborne]

Vel,

Which words from the prophet Joseph Smith specifically betray the papyrus as a catalyst? Do you think the prophet

[Paul Osborne]

The Headless Laban,

You say that Joseph Smith thought he was translating Egyptian and I say that Isaac thought he was blessing Esau. Sounds like a match made in heaven. God can be so tricky sometimes.

How can you tell me that a catalyst was not factored into any revelation that Joseph got from the Lord? Were you there watching him get every revelation? You can

[juliann]

Why even create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar if it wasn't even Egyptian he was translating? So obviously Joseph Smith was completely unaware of your catalyst theory.

The alphabet could very well be an attempt to figure out how to translate Egyptian after the fact.

Why would God use Pagan Funerary text as a vehicle for his word??  God has the Levites slaughter thousands for worshipping a golden calf but sends his holy words and teachings through Pagan texts about Pagan Gods and how to survive in the afterlife??  That doesn't make any sense.

Why would JS even need a catalyst?? He has the Seer Stone that he used for the BOM.  He didn't use the actual Gold Plates for "translating" so why would he all of a sudden need Pagan texts??

If you start with those standards then you have to ask why God had his prophets using lots and rods. The point is...we don't know what happened and we only have a small part of the originals. As with the BOM, the best evidence is going to be internal...which is why dealing with the actual text is avoided at all costs. You can discount theories about the transmission til the cows come home...but you are still left with the end result.

[Paul Osborne]

The alphabet could very well be an attempt to figure out how to translate Egyptian after the fact.

[Paul Osborne]

The point is...we don't know what happened

I know what happened. Read all about it:

July

[Paul Osborne]

Hi Dale.

Paul O

[Dale]

Hi Paul. I just saw the post & thought I would join in.

Hi every one,

The problem that occurs with me regarding the alphabet is that everbody believes that it points the the source of the Book of Abraham except popularly by a few Pro-Book of Abraham apologists & scholars. Though not every pro-Book of Abraham apologist & scholar believes the source is missing. But no-body knows how it was used exactly. Was it used in translating the Book of Breathings text? Was it used in trying to decipher a lost portion of the papyrus? Other than the result that we now have a Book of Abraham no-body knows how it was used other than I am coming to believe it was used as a guide in translation.

The EAG was used to ponder the Book of Breathings text. They made extensive notes about it. Unless them looking to the Book of Breathings for the source of the Book of Abraham concepts was a mistake or the source has been found.

What I said above is not because I believe absolutely rejecting the missing papyrus idea. I don't believe in being protective of one idea at the expense of others approaches to the papyrus found in 1967. I believe it's good to generate new ideas because apologetics should be improving in every approach not locked totally in the same old tired statement of the past.

The question they must have had in pondering the large amount of english text & so few characters was "How technically was it possible for the egyptian to be more complex than english?" I make another suggestion that Joseph Smith Jr. knew the EAG didn't make sense in the human sense. It's not that he couldn't have believed it inspired. The stuff was the only Alphabet he could construct by relying on his spiritual impressions both objective & subjective & used them in translation. But he worked so hard on it along with others that he used it in translation whether it made human sense to him or not.

The difficulty we have is the EAG proves even if Joseph's & his scribes gave ideas that they were confident it was the source when it was produced. The argument the Book of Breathings characters copied in the english text after the english text was completed doesn't disprove the found source idea. Why would someone copy characters next to a finished translation unless it was a significant piece of papyrus to them to them? Blaming the scribes for it & not admitting Joseph Smith Jr. had a hand in it doesn'twork as an explanation for me. Although I suggest a new idea that the EAG might have been used to try & translate a part of papyrus now missing. But the only thing that Joseph Smith Jr. & his scribes wanted out of the meaning of papyrus in question was concepts related to the Book of Abraham. Which then was written down in the EAG which God never told them was a correct grammar atleast according to conentional understandings of egyptology today.

I see no reason to state Joseph correctly translated anything but the Book of Abraham. The EAG was a unique approach designed to create a grammar. That even if nor correct by standards conventional egyptology today would have been useful in translating an original papyrus of Abraham. The thing generated thoughts that might be inspired which Joseph Smith Jr. used as a guide to try & create a grammar & use it as an outline for the Book of Abraham. The Lord never revealed to Joseph conventional egyptology of today but allowed him to figure out what the papyrus meant for himself. Through a combination of logical reasoning & what to us moderns involve some subjective spiritual & some true impressions. Such impressions were written down in trust & used later as a guide to create the Book of Abraham. The issue then becomes not whether the EAG suggested the source but whether truths were revealed to Joseph by God or not. The work of Paul Osbourne & Kerry Shirts & the large FARMS collection of traditions regarding the life of Abraham suggest the text of the Book of Abraham has authentic truths in it.

Whether one finds the EAG silly is an oppinion I don't share. The EAG was a serious approach to find truth in the papyrus that later became the Book of Abraham.

Whether the EAG was used or not in translation is being debated in the Pearl of Great Price section of this message board. The biggest problem for me that it wasn't used is that the scribes had plenty of time to see the actual source for the Book of Abraham. If the alphabet was used to try & translate a missing portion of papyrus then I am open to discussions of that idea. But the EAG should not be ignored or minimized in importance as possibly pointing to the the source of the Book of Abraham. The Book of Breathings wasn't the source but thought related to the Book of Abraham text we have now.

"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposedthat I would give it unto, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheess, it is not expedient that you translate now."(D&C 9:7-9)

I believe the above scriptures from the Doctrine & Covenants demonstrates the process of translation isn't by dictation but involved serious study & prayer. So to me it's no big deal if Joseph Smith Jr's track he was on regarding the papyrus was off track by modern egyptological standards. The text of the Book of Abraham (the result) not whether Joseph correctly translated egyptian should be the issue. Unlike the Book of Mormon the Lord never told Joseph Smith Jr. that the the EAG was right according to conventional Egyptian.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Dale]

Hi,

Paul the EAG is the only item that we have that Joseph Smith Jr. could have displayed & produced. The suggestion that we can blame the scribes seems wishful thinking to me. The idea he had no confidence in it seems a stretch. Unless another alphabet turns up & there's no proof for this I think it should be admitted Joseph Smith Jr. had a hand in the EAG.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Paul Osborne]

The problem that occurs with me regarding the alphabet is that everbody believes that it points the the source of the Book of Abraham except popularly by a few Pro-Book of Abraham apologists & scholars.

I can't think of any evidence that shows the EAG and BofA are not related and produced by the prophet and his assistents in effort to carry on the Lord's work. The ONLY reason why LDS apologists try to separate the two is because they don't like what it says. What kind of evidence is that? Can you think of any other reasons why the EAG should not be directly tied to the BofA, Dale?

Though not every pro-Book of Abraham apologist & scholar believes the source is missing. But no-body knows how it was used exactly.

So true.

What are the characters in the EAG? They are pretty much what is in the known papyrus beside some other goodies. Right?

Other than the result that we now have a Book of Abraham no-body knows how it was used other than I am coming to believe it was used as a guide in translation.

This is of course is central to the reason why they reject it. They don't like it and it doesn't make sense to them - so they reject it.

The EAG was used to ponder the Book of Breathings text. They made extensive notes about it.

Yes. That is a fact. They spent a lot of time working with the Book of Breathings text. All the evidence proves that.

Unless them looking to the Book of Breathings for the source of the Book of Abraham concepts was a mistake or the source has been found.

Is there any evidence that it was a mistake other than not liking the contents or that is doesn't agree with modern science?

What I said above is not because I believe absolutely rejecting the missing papyrus idea. I don't believe in being protective of one idea at the expense of others approaches to the papyrus found in 1967. I believe it's good to generate new ideas because apologetics should be improving in every approach not locked totally in the same old tired statement of the past.

Good. I'm glad you have an open mind. That means you really don't believe there was a missing papyus in light of everything we know and the evidence at hand.

The question they must have had in pondering the large amount of english text & so few characters was "How technically was it possible for the egyptian to be more complex than english?"

They surely weren't stupid. There were briliant minds at work. Why would any ordinary thinker suppose he could get half a page of text from a single character? But we see these brethren were not ordinary thinkers and neither is the product.

I make another suggestion that Joseph Smith Jr. knew the EAG didn't make sense in the human sense. It's not that he couldn't have  believed it inspired.

Yep. The prophet knew that what he was doing had no parallel. But he did it anyways. Would he have spent weeks or months doing it if he didn't feel the Spirit guide him? What kind of prophet would continue on doing something like that for days on end. If it was false the prophet would have had a stupor of thought and stopped the work. In that case we most likely wouldn't even have the record because it would have been tossed in the trash. But we have the record and the record is true. All evidence points to that conclusion. The only reason why people disagree with that conclusion is because they don't like what the EAG says and don't understand it.

The stuff was the only Alphabet he could construct by relying on his spiritual impressions both objective & subjective & used them in translation. But he worked so hard on it along with others that he used it in translation whether it made human sense to him or not.

It is the ONLY Alphabet in existence. It was brought across the plains and preserved by the prophets. It is a true record and a witness of Joseph Smith's experience as he was moved by the Spirit. I'm confident that the prophet knew what he was doing. Those who reject the work have no confidence that the prophet knew what he was doing when he made that grammar. How sad.

The difficulty we have is the EAG proves even if Joseph's & his scribes gave ideas that they were confident it was the source when it was produced.

It's not difficult for me. I beleive the brethren were moved by the Spirit and not working in a long stupor of thought day after day as some people suppose.

The argument the Book of Breathings characters copied in the english text after the english text was completed doesn't disprove the found source idea.

There is no evidence at all that disproves the found source. All evidence shows how the found source is truly found. Those who insist that the characters were drawn after the text, as an after thought, have no proof. They just spout their opinions without allowing the papers to be put under the light of scrutiny. Anyway, the person(s) who wrote the characters had special priviledge to do so. Is it not reasonable to assume that those papers belonged to Joseph Smith, the President of the Church?

Why would someone copy characters next to a finished translation unless it was a significant piece of papyrus to them to them?

Because he was having a stupor of thought and the Spirit of the Lord is fled?

Blaming the scribes for it & not admitting Joseph Smith Jr. had a hand in it doesn'twork as an explanation for me.

It doesn't work for me either. It is disrespectful and shameful to blame the scribes.

Although I suggest a new idea that the EAG might have been used to try & translate a part of papyrus now missing. But the only thing that Joseph Smith Jr. & his scribes wanted out of the meaning of papyrus in question was concepts related to the Book of Abraham. Which then was written down in the EAG which God never told them was a correct grammar atleast according to conentional understandings of egyptology today.

No matter how you slice it, the EAG and the BofA were both respected by the brethren and preserved. The prophet was pleased with his work. Can anyone show me that he wasn't? Show me evidence that Joseph Smith didn't like his own work and that he tossed it away as a failed experience. There is no evidence.

I see no reason to state Joseph correctly translated anything but the Book of Abraham.

How abot the Book of Mormon? ;-)

The EAG was a unique approach designed to create a grammar.

Yes it was unique. There is nothing in all the world that can compare to that work.

The thing generated thoughts that might be inspired which Joseph Smith Jr. used as a guide to try & create a grammar & use it as an outline for the Book of Abraham.

I think that is what President Romney expressed, saying, "I am sure he often drank from the same fountain the Prophet Joseph had been drinking from when he wrote, "This afternoon I labored on the EGYPTIAN ALPHABET in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps; and during the RESEARCH, the principles of astronomy, as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients, unfolded to our understanding"

The Lord never revealed to Joseph conventional egyptology of today but allowed him to figure out what the papyrus meant for himself.

Correct. There is zero evidence to show that the prophet translated conventionally. LDS apologists who think so have nothing to back it up but their own hopes.

Through a combination of logical reasoning & what to us moderns involve some subjective spiritual & some true impressions. Such impressions were written down in trust & used later as a guide to create the Book of Abraham. The issue then becomes not whether the EAG suggested the source but whether truths were revealed to Joseph by God or not. The work of Paul Osbourne & Kerry Shirts & the large FARMS collection of traditions regarding the life of Abraham suggest the text of the Book of Abraham has authentic truths in it.

Thanks for mentionaing me. Oh, there isn't a letter U in my name. ;-)

Whether one finds the EAG silly is an oppinion I don't share. The EAG was a serious approach to find truth in the papyrus that later became the Book of Abraham.

Yes, it was serious business. November 17

[Guest Just Curious]

Do you apologists see how ridiculous you are being. Why do we have a text that is translated incorrectly. If it was through inspiration and has nothing to do with the correct translation of the papyri, why was the papyri translated then, what was the need for it. Why not just put your rock in your hat and create a new scripture like he did with the BOM. It is utterly incredulous the excuses that I see for this obvious and PROVEN fake translation.

[Paul Osborne]

Hi,

Paul the EAG is the only item that we have that Joseph Smith Jr. could have displayed & produced. The suggestion that we can blame the scribes seems wishful thinking to me. The idea he had no confidence in it seems a stretch. Unless another alphabet turns up & there's no proof for this I think it should be admitted Joseph Smith Jr. had a hand in the EAG.

Sincerely,

Dale

Yes he had a hand in it. His handwriting is therein.

If any other documents show up they will be more of the same. The same is true regarding the missing papyrus - funerary text.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Do you apologists see how ridiculous you are being. Why do we have a text that is translated incorrectly. If it was through inspiration and has nothing to do with the correct translation of the papyri, why was the papyri translated then, what was the need for it. Why not just put your rock in your hat and create a new scripture like he did with the BOM. It is utterly incredulous the excuses that I see for this obvious and PROVEN fake translation.

Working the FAIR Message Board and listening to Conference at the same time is tricky. I get the best of both worlds!

Why ask why? The Lord

[A Random Catholic]

Why do you suppose Moses lifted up the brazen serpent? Why have a serpent? If you can answer that you will answer why the prophet needed a papyrus.

Paul O

Must... resist... urge... to... reply... to... Paul... Must... RESIST... It's... too... strong... Sucking... me... in... Nooooo!!!

Cor 5:21 (KJV) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

John 3:14-15 (KJV) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

God uses typology (lit "foreshadowing") as a powerful prophetic teaching tool throughout the Bible- see Romans 5:14 and Hebrews 9:9. The brazen serpent is a type of the gospel- we look to the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.

Trembling in stark terror, I await your bizarre, otherworldly connection between the brazen serpent and the Joseph Smith papyri. If anybody needs me, I'll be curled up into a fetal position under my bed, sobbing uncontrollably...

[juliann]

Trembling in stark terror, I await your bizarre, otherworldly connection between the brazen serpent and the Joseph Smith papyri. If anybody needs me, I'll be curled up into a fetal position under my bed, sobbing uncontrollably...

We feel your pain, RC. Move over and make room.....

[Daniel Peterson]

Do you apologists see how ridiculous you are being.

No. We're apparently too stupid and ill-informed to see things your way.

Why do we have a text that is translated incorrectly.

Why do you assume that we agree with you that (1) we have the text and (2) it's translated incorrectly? Has our rejection of those propositions been insufficiently clear?

I'll try again.

(1) We probably don't have the text.

(2) The translation is correct.

It is utterly incredulous the excuses that I see for this obvious and PROVEN fake translation.

No, you're "incredulous" because you find our position "incredible." But do you actually know our position? Are you even just slightly curious about it, perhaps?

[A Random Catholic]

(1) We probably don't have the text.

(2) The translation is correct.

But do you actually know our position? Are you even just slightly curious about it, perhaps?

Whut? How could you have the text, or even a portion of it, from which the Book of Abraham is translated? Fugheddabout the Egyptologists for a moment: there just aren't enough characters on the papyrus to communicate all of the content of the Book of Abraham. While I'm not incredulous (because I assume I'm not fully grasping what you mean), neither am I particularly credulous, so make it good...

[Daniel Peterson]

(1)  We probably don't have the text.

Whut? How could you have the text, or even a portion of it, from which the Book of Abraham is translated?

Can you please explain the connection between your response and what I said? It's entirely obscure to me.

[A Random Catholic]

Dr Peterson:

You said,

(1) We probably don't have the text.

(2) The translation is correct.

Which I took to mean, "We possibly do have the text- the extant Joseph Smith Papyri may be the sole source of the Book of Abraham, although that is improbable. In any event, the translation of the Book of Abraham from the papyri that the Prophet had is correct." In my reply, I attempted to convey the query, "Is it not wholly impossible that the Book of Abraham was translated from the extant Joseph Smith papyri, assuming you assign the conventional meaning to the word, "translation?"

[Guest Just Curious]

I'll try again.

(1) We probably don't have the text.

There are those who have had the opportunity to do research on this subject that disagree with this statement strongly.

(

2) The translation is correct.

Which non LDS people learned in egyptian translation will back up your assertion the translation is correct? There are many that have shown the translation totally incorrect !!!

Dan you are beginning to sound like John Kerry...say things that are incorrect enough and people will start believing it without checking out the facts...sorry in this case the facts are against the translation being correct.