The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[Benjamin McGuire]

Andrew writes:

It's called Genesis.

Very true. One of the issues though, for example, is that EA-OC (the Oliver Cowdery document) cannot pre-date November 20, 1835. Oliver's text seems to contain specific expansions that seem to be reliant on the Gibbs Hebrew Lexicon that Oliver brought back from New York. These expansions can be found in lexical entries related to the words from the Genesis creation accounts. Then we have the issue of Josephus. We don't know exactly when a copy of Joseph was obtained by the Saints. Elsewhere in this forum, Andrew made this comment:

There was, however, one important change which needed to be made. It seems that Oliver Cowdery had done some reading on his trip to New York and discovered that Pharaoh Amenophis worshipped the crocodile god.

Andrew was referring to Josephus and suggested then that it was on this November trip that Oliver had encountered Josephus (and perhaps brought a copy back with him). This actually fits rather well within the timeline of other evidence, as it is in December of 1835 (the following month) that we have Oliver first referring to Joseph, but again this causes problems for the chronology. If we accept Chris Smith's argument on Ah=meh=strah and Ah meh strahans, from his JWHA paper:

Josephus, for example, refers to Egypt as Mestre (apparently a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name for Egypt, Mizraim) and the Egyptians as Mestreans. The GAEL calls Egypt Ah=meh=strah and the Egyptians the Ah meh strahans, apparently Egyptianizations of the names from Josephus. Thus Smith likely absorbed this suggestion from Cowdery, then added his own prophetic touch.

But this would also push work on the GAEL back at least as late as December of 1835. This would be quite some time after we have the first few verses of the Book of Abraham - as Chris himself argues, we have other evidence that "the first three verses of the Book of Abraham must have been translated sometime prior to September 1835". The chronology becomes contradictory in these points. So, the contents of EA-OC point to a\likely earliest date at the end of November 1835 (and suggest something somewhat later than that). If they were concurrently produced, then all of the EA documents can be dated to November 1835 at the earliest, and Chris Smith's arguments (assuming he is right on the issues mentioned above) would also point to a date for the GAEL to have been produced or at least worked on some time after that same November date. And this chronology supports the notion that Abraham 1:1-3 comes prior to these texts as Will suggests (although I argue that on an entirely different basis than he does).

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

Again, I challenge you to post images of the characters from the EA/GAEL and the papyri, and then demonstrate how those images are to be found on the papyri, in order that people may judge for themselves. Start off with 10 or 20 of the 69 characters given explanations. I can't wait to see it. I can't wait for the reading audience to see it.

[William Schryver]

Here is one example that [edit] ("George Miller") has given. I assume this is one of their best examples. I don't find this one very persuasive, to tell you the truth. I want to see them do this with several more characters--demonstrating how the EA/GAEL characters can be found on the papyri. In the meantime, let's have our readers judge the case Mr. [edit] makes for this single character:

Using their methodology, it just might be possible to create half the English alphabet by cutting off one segment or the other of the character they've chosen.

Do not use posters' real names here without their permission.

[Mortal Man]

You're missing the point as badly as Analytics. The issue is whether or not Joseph Smith believed the translation of the Book of Abraham corresponded to the Book of Breathings. That's been the argument the critics have been advancing for 40+ years. That's the argument I'm disputing here.

There is no way to know what Joseph Smith believed. That has never been the critics' argument. That has only been a decoy employed by apologists for 40+ years. We only know what Joseph Smith claimed. He claimed that the Book of Breathings (or whatever of Gee's latest quibblings you want to call it) was Abraham's autobiography, written and signed by his very own fleshy hand upon the very same papyrus scroll that contained Facsimiles 1 and 3.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Mortal Man

[William Schryver]

There is no way to know what Joseph Smith believed. That has never been the critics' argument. That has only been a decoy employed by apologists for 40+ years. We only know what Joseph Smith claimed. He claimed that the Book of Breathings (or whatever of Gee's latest quibblings you want to call it) was Abraham's autobiography, written by his very own fleshy hand upon the very same papyrus that contained Facsimiles 1 and 3.

Absolutely false.

CFR

Let's see where Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Breathings was Abraham's autobiography.

ETA: This is more or less the same methodology employed in the Cook/Smith scroll-length paper. Assert that such and such measurements are correct, trusting that no one will actually question them. Of course, they already know that the apostate horde won't question them, and that's their biggest concern.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here is one example that [edit] ("George Miller") has given. I assume this is one of their best examples. I don't find this one very persuasive, to tell you the truth. I want to see them do this with several more characters--demonstrating how the EA/GAEL characters can be found on the papyri. In the meantime, let's have our readers judge the case Mr. [edit] makes for this single character:

Using their methodology, it just might be possible to create half the English alphabet by cutting off one segment or the other of the character they've chosen.

Do not use posters' real names here without their permission.

Well I am convinced.

[George Miller]

I don't find this one very persuasive, to tell you the truth. I want to see them do this with several more characters--demonstrating how the EA/GAEL characters can be found on the papyri.

Above is a copy of a portion of the fifth degree of the GAEL. As you can see Chris and I are not making things up as the dissection of this character is found there right there in the GAEL. When I publish my material I will be happy to discuss it at that time. I will not discuss it here at this time on this forum. This is my last post on this thread.

Edited October 26, 2011 by George Miller

[Analytics]

You're missing the point as badly as Analytics. The issue is whether or not Joseph Smith believed the translation of the Book of Abraham corresponded to the Book of Breathings. That's been the argument the critics have been advancing for 40+ years. That's the argument I'm disputing here.

Try reading the thread topic.

I reject your assertion that this has been “the argument” the critics have been advancing. Their main argument is that Joseph Smith made it up. Whether or not he personally believed that what he made up was a translation of the Book of Breathings (or any other part of the papyri he acquired) is a side issue.

Addressing your main point, the Book of Abraham manuscripts imply that W. W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, Frederick G. Williams, and Willard Richards believed that the Book of Breathings was in fact the source of the Book of Abraham. It is quite unlikely that they would have reached that conclusion without having been lead to believe as much by Joseph Smith. This is true regardless of whether these documents were written before or after the actual “translation”.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Analytics

[William Schryver]

I'm on my iPhone now and so I can only be brief, but I have had a minor epiphany concerning the Smith/"George Miller" attempt to expand upon W.W. Phelps's speculative (and quickly aborted) "dissection" idea. What Smith and "Miller" don't seem to appreciate is that their notion, if accepted, completely confirms my previously articulated argument that the EA/GAEL are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham!

I will explain more later. In the meantime, I again encourage "Miller" to demonstrate further how the dissection of characters from the papyri provides us with the characters in the Egyptian Alphabet.

[William Schryver]

Analytics,

You really need to do some more homework before you wade into these deep waters. Richards did not associate the Book of Breathings characters with the BoA. This is actually quite significant.

I will reply to your post more later on. Suffice it to say at present that you still fail to grasp the main points of this debate. Perhaps, in the meantime, you should ask Graham some more questions, for all the good that will do you.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

Analytics,

You really need to do some more homework before you wade into these deep waters. Neither Phelps nor Richards attempted to associate the Book of Breathings characters with the BoA. This is actually quite significant, especially in the case of the Richards manuscript.

I will reply to your post more later on. Suffice it to say at present that you still fail to grasp the main points of this debate. Perhaps, in the meantime, you should ask Graham some more questions, for all the good that will do you.

Before I asked Graham anything I asked you questions in an attempt to understand your point. You systematically failed to answer the questions I asked, but rather ridiculed me for the way I asked them.

I simply wonder why you think the order in which the BOA manuscripts and the BOA itself were produced has bearing on whether or not Joseph Smith lead his scribes to believe that the BOA came from the Book of Breathings. You've asserted it, but the logic isn't transparent.

I've done my best to explain why I hold the views I do. Calling me stupid isn't a rebuttal.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Analytics

[Chris Smith]

With very few exceptions, the EA/GAEL characters are not to be found on the papyri.

Nonsense. The large majority of the characters from parts 2b-5 of the EA are taken directly from the papyri. The characters from parts 1-2a mostly are not-- in my opinion they're invented, though George interprets them as dissections of papyrus characters-- but (as I think George and I both agree) Joseph nevertheless used them to reconstruct the characters missing from the papyrus's lacunae. In other words, regardless of whether these characters were derived from the papyrus, Joseph attributed them to the papyrus in its undamaged form.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

What Smith and "Miller" don't seem to appreciate is that their notion, if accepted, completely confirms my previously articulated argument that the EA/GAEL are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham!

It actually doesn't. George isn't proposing that they're dissections of the characters in the margins of the translation manuscript, but rather of a different set of characters on the papyrus. So it would still be necessary for the invented characters in the translation manuscripts to have been assembled from the sub-characters in the EAG.

[William Schryver]

Before I asked Graham anything I asked you questions in an attempt to understand your point. You systematically failed to answer the questions I asked, but rather ridiculed me for the way I asked them.

I've answered your questions. You just don't like the answers.

I simply wonder why you think the order in which the BOA manuscripts and the BOA itself were produced has bearing on whether or not Joseph Smith lead his scribes to believe that the BOA came from the Book of Breathings. You've asserted it, but the logic isn't transparent.

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith led his scribes to believe the BoA came from the Book of Breathings. You assert it, as many others have, but the logic isn't transparent. On the other hand, I have presented extensive evidence of the fact that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the Egyptian Alphabet, therefore precluding the long-asserted notion that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the BoA from the BoB.

I've done my best to explain why I hold the views I do. Calling me stupid isn't a rebuttal.

I haven't called you stupid even once. If I had, I would have drawn the wrath of the mods on this board. But even if I had, it wouldn't come close, by a million miles, to the kinds of things you have said to me over the years over on your home board. So stop your freaking whining.

[William Schryver]

Nonsense. The large majority of the characters from parts 2b-5 of the EA are taken directly from the papyri. The characters from parts 1-2a mostly are not-- in my opinion they're invented, though George interprets them as dissections of papyrus characters-- but (as I think George and I both agree) Joseph nevertheless used them to reconstruct the characters missing from the papyrus's lacunae. In other words, regardless of whether these characters were derived from the papyrus, Joseph attributed them to the papyrus in its undamaged form.

So let me get this straight, I made the statement that, with few exceptions, the characters in the EA are not taken from the papryi. In response you say, "nonsense" and then give as evidence your claim that the characters used to produce 3 1/2 verses come from the papyri. 3 1/2 verses out of how many? 136! That's 2.6% of the whole. And you say, "NONSENSE"?????!!!! Really?

Oh, but you assert that Joseph Smith must have attributed the others to the missing areas of the papyrus. How convenient. And you present what evidence to support this assertion?

Do people really give credence to arguments like this?

[Jack]

I am not that familiar with this topic, just what has been taught in Seminary and BYU and the church magazines.

I do find one real problem that does not go away. Why isn't Joseph Smiths Egyptian grammar and alphabet used by any museums or egyptologists? I can't read the language but everything I have read tells me that no one uses it because it is not what it claims to be. Or, am I not understanding things here?

[William Schryver]

It actually doesn't. George isn't proposing that they're dissections of the characters in the margins of the translation manuscript, but rather of a different set of characters on the papyrus. So it would still be necessary for the invented characters in the translation manuscripts to have been assembled from the sub-characters in the EAG.

I understand that it yet eludes you why your argument and that of "George" actually serves to confirm my argument (already confirmed by multiple other evidences) that the EA/GAEL are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. And since I'm so confident you won't figure it out in the meantime, and since I'm so tired right now and just want to go to sleep ... I'm going to delay explaining the reasons why until sometime tomorrow.

What would really be amazing is if you demonstrated to us all how Joseph Smith actually attributed the vast majority of the EA characters to missing places on the papyri. Man, that has got to be one of the most amazing arguments I have ever heard!

[William Schryver]

I am not that familiar with this topic, just what has been taught in Seminary and BYU and the church magazines.

I do find one real problem that does not go away. Why isn't Joseph Smiths Egyptian grammar and alphabet used by any museums or egyptologists? I can't read the language but everything I have read tells me that no one uses it because it is not what it claims to be. Or, am I not understanding things here?

You are not understanding things here.

The so-called "Egyptian Alphabet" was obviously never intended to translate Egyptian. If it had been, it wouldn't have been based largely on characters that weren't even Egyptian and that didn't even come from the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession.

Buona notte a tutti ...

[Chris Smith]

So let me get this straight, I made the statement that, with few exceptions, the characters in the EA are not taken from the papryi. In response you say, "nonsense" and then give as evidence your claim that the characters used to produce 3 1/2 verses come from the papyri. 3 1/2 verses out of how many? 136! That's 2.6% of the whole. And you say, "NONSENSE"?????!!!! Really?

I said parts 2b-5 of the EA, not verses 2b-5 of the BoA. Read a little more closely next time, bro.

[Analytics]

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith led his scribes to believe the BoA came from the Book of Breathings. You assert it, as many others have, but the logic isn't transparent.

My logic here is simple. The BoA manuscripts directly connect the Book of Breathings (BoB) with the BoA. This implies that the scribes that did the connecting thought that the BoB was the source of the BoA. It seems likely that they wouldn’t have come to this conclusion without the being lead there by Joseph Smith.

On the other hand, I have presented extensive evidence of the fact that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the Egyptian Alphabet, therefore precluding the long-asserted notion that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the BoA from the BoB.

I assume that your evidence that the BoA was translated before the BoA manuscripts were written is impressive. Good job. But isn’t it possible that Joseph’s scribes thought that the BoA was a translation of the BoB anyway? Despite the chronology you present, it appears that they really did think that the BoB was the source of the BoA. Why isn’t it at least possible that Joseph Smith got them started on this track of thinking?

I haven't called you stupid even once.

I was paraphrasing.

But even if I had, it wouldn't come close, by a million miles, to the kinds of things you have said to me over the years over on your home board.

I think you are confusing me with somebody else.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Analytics

[Chris Smith]

What would really be amazing is if you demonstrated to us all how Joseph Smith actually attributed the vast majority of the EA characters to missing places on the papyri. Man, that has got to be one of the most amazing arguments I have ever heard!

I didn't say that, either. What I did say is that Joseph used characters from EA parts 1-2a to reconstruct the characters missing from the lacuna. I'd be happy to illustrate that for you someday when I've got more time on my hands, but in the meantime I suspect it would be easy for you to figure out for yourself.

[William Schryver]

I said parts 2b-5 of the EA, not verses 2b-5 of the BoA. Read a little more closely next time, bro.

My bad. Like I said, I'm very tired. Now I'm ready for bed and about to get in.

Color me SHOCKED that you are claiming that EA parts 2b - 5 are taken from the papyri. Now I will say, NONSENSE!

I challenge you to prove it, like I did earlier today. Like Mola said, let's see you take 20 characters from the EA, other than the ones Phelps dissected, and show us where they are found on the papyri.

I can't wait to see this.

Good night.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I didn't say that, either. What I did say is that Joseph used characters from EA parts 1-2a to reconstruct the characters missing from the lacuna. I'd be happy to illustrate that for you someday when I've got more time on my hands, but in the meantime I suspect it would be easy for you to figure out for yourself.

Like I said, take 20 characters from parts 2b - 5 and show us where they are found on the papyri. I'm sure there will be some creative "dissection" going on.

After you're done, I think, just for giggles, I'll show how I can take two or three hieratic characters from the Book of Breathings text and "dissect" them in order to produce all 26 letters in the English alphabet.

I also want to see where the characters from the "Pure Language" letter Phelps wrote to his wife in May 1835 are found on the papyri.

[Chris Smith]

My bad. Like I said, I'm very tired. Now I'm ready for bed and about to get in. Color me SHOCKED that you are claiming that EA parts 2b - 5 are taken from the papyri. Now I will say, NONSENSE! I challenge you to prove it, like I did earlier today. Like Mola said, let's see you take 20 characters from the EA, other than the ones Phelps dissected, and show us where they are found on the papyri. I can't wait to see this. Good night.

Given your interest in this subject, I find it bizarre that you're not aware of this. This is basic stuff. I summarized it in my JWHA paper, and I've posted that same summary on the boards several times.

Here's part 5 of the EA matched up with Register 4 of pJS 1. As you can see, the characters come, sequentially, directly from the papyrus. I could construct similar graphics for parts 2b-4, though at the moment I haven't the time. Maybe later.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Given your interest in this subject, I find it bizarre that you're not aware of this. This is basic stuff. I summarized it in my JWHA paper, and I've posted that same summary on the boards several times.

Here's part 5 of the EA matched up with Register 4 of pJS 1. As you can see, the characters come, sequentially, directly from the papyrus. I could construct similar graphics for parts 2b-4, though at the moment I haven't the time. Maybe later.

Nice dodge, Chris.

I'm beginning to become convinced that you and Andrew and "George" are actually very conscious of the deception you're trying to pawn.

Now try locating 20 of the 69 characters to which they actually provided explanations. (As I challenged here and elsewhere.)

ETA: Somehow I can picture you chortling an evil laugh as you posted that post. "I'll trick all the unsuspecting fools ..."

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver