Book Of Abraham Critiques: Requesting Your Opinion

[TruthSeeker2013]

I’ve been studying Book of Abraham issues recently and have tried to boil them down into a synopsis of how I understand the evidence. I wanted to post it here for your thoughts and opinions on how I’ve summarized it (I’ve also posted it at MormonDiscussions, a more critical forum, to request their feedback):

Assuming the BOA is not a product of Joseph Smith himself, the BOA came from one of three sources, or a combination thereof: 1)Direct revelation from God, 2)Papyri that we have, 3)Papyri that we don’t have.

Direct Revelation from God:

First, it seems we can easily rule out direct revelation from God because there are numerous anachronisms in the BOA text: Chaldea, Egyptus, Pharaoh, etc, which indicate that the BOA was written hundreds or thousands of years after Abraham’s time. God would not instruct Joseph to write anachronisms into Abraham’s book. Therefore the source must be other than direct revelation from God.

Papyri:

Joseph authored the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” which includes the text of Abraham 1:1-2:18 with corresponding Egyptian characters down the left hand side of the page (photos of this and the papyri are published by the Church on josephsmithpapers.org). The order in which the Egyptian characters are written in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar directly match the order in which the characters appear in a portion of the papyri called the “Small Sensen”. (The papyri Joseph bought and said was the source of the BOA was lost for many years and rediscovered in the 1960’s). Thus, it appears that Joseph wrote the BOA by doing a character by character translation from the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

Other evidence that suggests that the BOA came from the papyri is Abraham 1:12 which refers to Facsimile 1 as being “at the commencement of this record.” So the source of the BOA text must have been from the same papyrus as Facsimile 1. What do we know was on the same papyrus as Facsimile 1? The Small Sensen portion of the papyrus. We know this because the edge of the papyrus containing Facsimile 1 and the edge of the papyrus containing the Small Sensen match each other – showing that they were one piece of papyrus before being cut apart (Facsimile 1 was cut apart from the papyrus at one time and framed for display).

We know that Facsimile 1 was at the very beginning of the rolled papyrus. Thus, we know that Facsimile 1 was at the start of the papyrus and was immediately followed by the Small Sensen. It makes sense, then, that our modern day BOA in the Pearl of Great Price begins first with the picture of Facsimile 1 and then starts with the Book of Abraham text. This makes sense because the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar indicates that the BOA is translated from the Small Sensen portion which we know immediately followed Facsimile 1.

Conclusion:

Therefore, it appears that we have the papyri from which Joseph believed he translated the BOA. Of course, everyone including the apologists agree that Joseph’s translation of both Facsimile 1 and the Small Sensen are incorrect (they are common Egyptian funerary papyri from about 2000 years after Abraham’s time). So we’re left with the BOA either being revelation from God or from missing papyri. For the reasons outlined above, critics argue that neither seems to be very likely.

This is obviously a boiled down version of the BOA issues, which are numerous and complex. What are your opinions/critiques of my synopsis?

[mfbukowski]

Direct Revelation from God:

First, it seems we can easily rule out direct revelation from God because there are numerous anachronisms in the BOA text: Chaldea, Egyptus, Pharaoh, etc, which indicate that the BOA was written hundreds or thousands of years after Abraham’s time. God would not instruct Joseph to write anachronisms into Abraham’s book. Therefore the source must be other than direct revelation from God.

These are only "anachronisms" if you assume it was a translation in the first place. You are begging the question. The papyri could have been wallpaper- what they "said" literally is irrelevant. They were a catalyst for revelation, like staring into a fire or looking at tea leaves, or watching the ocean, though Joseph thought it was a translation.

It was a direct revelation from God, through a very human prophet, as all prophets are. Nothing much more to say about it.

It is a revelation about religious truths- not worldly things at all. That's it.

Edited May 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

God would not instruct Joseph to write anachronisms into Abraham’s book.

Why wouldn't He? If only to test your faith?

[mfbukowski]

The assumption that God speaks in words and dictates complete English paragraphs word for word is just plain superstition.

[rongo]

Here are some thoughts I had:

First, it seems we can easily rule out direct revelation from God because there are numerous anachronisms in the BOA text

We can't "easily" rule out direct revelation for the same reason that we can't in the case of the Bible and Book of Mormon because some claim that there are "numerous anachronisms in the [bible or Book of Mormon] text." Claims of anachronisms haven't hampered the Bible or Book of Mormon for a great many who believe and study them. Also, apparent "anachronisms" are not always actuallyanachronistic, and your specific examples (Chaldea, Egyptus, Pharaoh, etc.) are good examples of this. You don't appear to be very conversant with Hugh Nibley's voluminous writings on this.

Joseph authored the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar”

This is, at best, a controversial statement. There are indications that Joseph Smith had little to do with it, and that it was mainly driven by other men seeking in their way to figure out a mechanism of inspired translation. Again, you would do well to hear what Nibley had to say on this subject to broaden your understanding of the scope of approaches.

Thus, it appears that Joseph wrote the BOA by doing a character by character translation from the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

No, it really doesn't appear that way at all to many knowledgable people.

Of course, everyone including the apologists agree that Joseph’s translation of both Facsimile 1 and the Small Sensen are incorrect (they are common Egyptian funerary papyri from about 2000 years after Abraham’s time).

I don't think this is an accurate statement. "Even apologists" would agree that conventional Egyptological translations differ from what Joseph Smith made of them, but they wouldn't agree that his translations "are incorrect." And the Joseph Smith vignettes are unique and one-of-a-kind in special ways, so they weren't "common Egyptian funerary" items. Knowledgable believers also don't have any problem with the Book of Abraham text stemming from Ptolomaic Egypt, rather than originally from Abraham himself.

Edited May 16, 2013 by rongo

[TruthSeeker2013]

These are only "anachronisms" if you assume it was a translation in the first place. You are begging the question. The papyri could have been wallpaper- what they "said" literally is irrelevant. They were a catalyst for revelation, like staring into a fire or looking at tea leaves, or watching the ocean, though Joseph thought it was a translation.

It was a direct revelation from God, through a very human prophet, as all prophets are. Nothing much more to say about it.

It is a revelation about religious truths- not worldly things at all. That's it.

Are you saying that perhaps the anachronisms were not from any text, but from Joseph's misunderstanding of the revelation? If so, that’s an interesting thought.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Why wouldn't He? If only to test your faith?

So perhaps God included the anachronisms on purpose knowing that they would be discovered and encourage members to rely more on their faith than evidence. Did I understand you correctly? I hadn't thought of that before.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Here are some thoughts I had:

We can't "easily" rule out direct revelation for the same reason that we can't in the case of the Bible and Book of Mormon because some claim that there are "numerous anachronisms in the [bible or Book of Mormon] text." Claims of anachronisms haven't hampered the Bible or Book of Mormon for a great many who believe and study them. Also, apparent "anachronisms" are not always actuallyanachronistic, and your specific examples (Chaldea, Egyptus, Pharaoh, etc.) are good examples of this. You don't appear to be very conversant with Hugh Nibley's voluminous writings on this.

This is, at best, a controversial statement. There are indications that Joseph Smith had little to do with it, and that it was mainly driven by other men seeking in their way to figure out a mechanism of inspired translation. Again, you would do well to hear what Nibley had to say on this subject to broaden your understanding of the scope of approaches.

No, it really doesn't appear that way at all to many knowledgable people.

I don't think this is an accurate statement. "Even apologists" would agree that conventional Egyptological translations differ from what Joseph Smith made of them, but they wouldn't agree that his translations "are incorrect." And the Joseph Smith vignettes are unique and one-of-a-kind in special ways, so they weren't "common Egyptian funerary" items. Knowledgable believers also don't have any problem with the Book of Abraham text stemming from Ptolomaic Egypt, rather than originally from Abraham himself.

Thank you for your thoughts. I am aware of some of Nibley's approaches to the BOA, but I admit that I am not intimately familiar with them (as they are indeed quite voluminous). You are obviously more aware of Nibley’s opinions than I. I have tried to search FAIR and FARMS for information about anachronisms in the BOA but haven’t found anything.

Are you by chance aware how Nibley or any other believer has approached the Abraham 1:12 reference to Facsimile 1? Is the argument that Facsimile 1 was correctly translated? Or is the argument that Joseph mistakenly included a reference to Facsimile 1 when he was receiving the BOA text revelation? My understanding is that most apologists agree that Facsimile 1 is undoubtedly not a literal translation.

[rongo]

Thank you for your thoughts. I am aware of some of Nibley's approaches to the BOA, but I admit that I am not intimately familiar with them (as they are indeed quite voluminous). You are obviously more aware of Nibley’s opinions than I. I have tried to search FAIR and FARMS for information about anachronisms in the BOA but haven’t found anything.

Are you by chance aware how Nibley or any other believer has approached the Abraham 1:12 reference to Facsimile 1? Is the argument that Facsimile 1 was correctly translated? Or is the argument that Joseph mistakenly included a reference to Facsimile 1 when he was receiving the BOA text revelation? My understanding is that most apologists agree that Facsimile 1 is undoubtedly not a literal translation.

I have loaned all of my Book of Abraham books to a fellow ward member (who was introduced to the BoA, after knowing very little about it), and he is eating them up (we discuss things he's read every Sunday --- he was my finance clerk when I was a bishop). So, all of my books are currently on loan . . .

However, you are correct that most apologists don't think that the first part of the text of the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Facsimile 1 (or the other two facsimiles, either). Joseph Smith's explanatory comments that accompany the pictures are what is directly linked to them. My understanding is that the text, and the pictures, are the passing on of Abrahamic traditions in a Ptolemaic Egyptian idiom (ca. 200 B.C., give or take). That is, the traditions and doctrine are accurate, but the book itself was not written by Abraham himself. According to ancient understanding, in a real sense the book can accurately be considered as being written "by [Abraham's] own hand, upon papyrus," even though the book in its current form was composed long after Abraham had died.

Off the top of my head, Facsimile 1 has some striking "bulls-eyes" in Joseph Smith's favor, such as the canopic jars representing the earth in its four quarters, the lotus symbol in Fac. 1 & 3 plausibly being a chosen symbol for "Abraham in Egypt," an angel being represented as a hawk, a ritual sacrifice instead of an embalming scene (critics had long claimed that the embalmer should have had an Anubis mask on, and Joseph changed it, but there are pictures from Nauvoo showing that the human head is how it was, making this version of the lion couch scene unique). Also, the priest is between Abraham and the couch, instead of behind it, and the man on the couch has his hands raised in prayer and one foot lifted up in the air. This particular sacrifice had the specific purpose of aleviating drought conditions, which the BoA text gives as the purpose, and the text also describes this as connected with the god Shagreel. Shigre (Shigre-el around Syria-Turkey-northern Iraq) was actually the name for Sirius (the dog star), and it was believed that Sirius controlled the sun's power --- hence, sacrifices to placate Sirius (we still call August, our hottest month, the "dog days").

I could provide more info if I had my books, but in short, Joseph Smith got a lot of things right (or, at minimum, they are plausible and not the completely hopeless nonsense that should result, given how he was supposed to have done it and how buffoonish he was supposed to have been, per critics).

[TruthSeeker2013]

I have loaned all of my Book of Abraham books to a fellow ward member (who was introduced to the BoA, after knowing very little about it), and he is eating them up (we discuss things he's read every Sunday --- he was my finance clerk when I was a bishop). So, all of my books are currently on loan . . .

However, you are correct that most apologists don't think that the first part of the text of the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Facsimile 1 (or the other two facsimiles, either). Joseph Smith's explanatory comments that accompany the pictures are what is directly linked to them. My understanding is that the text, and the pictures, are the passing on of Abrahamic traditions in a Ptolemaic Egyptian idiom (ca. 200 B.C., give or take). That is, the traditions and doctrine are accurate, but the book itself was not written by Abraham himself. According to ancient understanding, in a real sense the book can accurately be considered as being written "by [Abraham's] own hand, upon papyrus," even though the book in its current form was composed long after Abraham had died.

Off the top of my head, Facsimile 1 has some striking "bulls-eyes" in Joseph Smith's favor, such as the canopic jars representing the earth in its four quarters, the lotus symbol in Fac. 1 & 3 plausibly being a chosen symbol for "Abraham in Egypt," an angel being represented as a hawk, a ritual sacrifice instead of an embalming scene (critics had long claimed that the embalmer should have had an Anubis mask on, and Joseph changed it, but there are pictures from Nauvoo showing that the human head is how it was, making this version of the lion couch scene unique). Also, the priest is between Abraham and the couch, instead of behind it, and the man on the couch has his hands raised in prayer and one foot lifted up in the air. This particular sacrifice had the specific purpose of aleviating drought conditions, which the BoA text gives as the purpose, and the text also describes this as connected with the god Shagreel. Shigre (Shigre-el around Syria-Turkey-northern Iraq) was actually the name for Sirius (the dog star), and it was believed that Sirius controlled the sun's power --- hence, sacrifices to placate Sirius (we still call August, our hottest month, the "dog days").

I could provide more info if I had my books, but in short, Joseph Smith got a lot of things right (or, at minimum, they are plausible and not the completely hopeless nonsense that should result, given how he was supposed to have done it and how buffoonish he was supposed to have been, per critics).

Impressive for just being off the top of your head! When you get your books back, I'd love to hear from you if you find anything about the Abraham 1:12 reference to Facsimile 1. Thanks!

[omni]

The papyri could have been wallpaper- what they "said" literally is irrelevant. They were a catalyst for revelation, like staring into a fire or looking at tea leaves, or watching the ocean, though Joseph thought it was a translation.

It was a direct revelation from God, through a very human prophet, as all prophets are. Nothing much more to say about it.

Why is it that apologists know this, but Joseph and every prophet since didn't know this?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Why is it that apologists know this, but Joseph and every prophet since didn't know this?

A fair question. Also, if the BOA source is revelation and not a translation, what is your opinion as to why God revealed to Joseph anachronisms to include in Abraham's writing? And how are the mistranslated facsimiles accounted for?

Edited May 17, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[rongo]

Easy, from where I'm sitting. They aren't anachronisms, and the facsimiles aren't "mistranslated" . . .

[ERayR]

Why is it that apologists know this, but Joseph and every prophet since didn't know this?

Why is it that every critic is a clairvoyant that knows exactly what Joseph Smith and every prophet since was thinking every moment of every day of their lives?

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................

First, it seems we can easily rule out direct revelation from God because there are numerous anachronisms in the BOA text: Chaldea, Egyptus, Pharaoh, etc, which indicate that the BOA was written hundreds or thousands of years after Abraham’s time. God would not instruct Joseph to write anachronisms into Abraham’s book. Therefore the source must be other than direct revelation from God.

I'm not sure what is meant by "direct revelation from God," but the matter of "numerous anachronisms" entails apriori assumptions about what constitutes an "anachronism," and skips the all important matter of the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

The "anachronisms" you list are not actually anachronisms, and the nature of transmitted texts is that they tend to gather contemporary material as they are copied, translated, and passed on. The Bible is an excellent example of this, containing as it does thousands of apparent anachronisms. None of the features of the story of Abraham in Genesis, for example, is in the language spoken by Abraham, and none of the manuscript copies of Paul's letters were actually signed by him (even though he claims to do so in the originals, which no longer exist).

Joseph authored the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” which includes the text of Abraham 1:1-2:18 with corresponding Egyptian characters down the left hand side of the page (photos of this and the papyri are published by the Church on josephsmithpapers.org). The order in which the Egyptian characters are written in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar directly match the order in which the characters appear in a portion of the papyri called the “Small Sensen”. (The papyri Joseph bought and said was the source of the BOA was lost for many years and rediscovered in the 1960’s). Thus, it appears that Joseph wrote the BOA by doing a character by character translation from the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

The Egyptian grammar effort of Joseph and his brethren (his scribes wrote nearly all of it) was an attempt to create either a translation key, or to create a cipher key. In fact, William Phelps had already begun working on ciphers before the mummies and papyri arrived in Kirtland. The effort was an obvious failure, and died aborning (they gave up without finishing it). Revelation may provide a translation, but it does not teach one how to read Egyptian. Other issues intrude to make it unlikely that Joseph in fact thought the Sensen text was the Book of Abraham.

Other evidence that suggests that the BOA came from the papyri is Abraham 1:12 which refers to Facsimile 1 as being “at the commencement of this record.” So the source of the BOA text must have been from the same papyrus as Facsimile 1. What do we know was on the same papyrus as Facsimile 1? The Small Sensen portion of the papyrus. We know this because the edge of the papyrus containing Facsimile 1 and the edge of the papyrus containing the Small Sensen match each other – showing that they were one piece of papyrus before being cut apart (Facsimile 1 was cut apart from the papyrus at one time and framed for display).

The context of Abraham 1:12-13 is that sacrificial action at an altar set up in N. Syria is going on, and the text of Abraham here speaks of the form of that altar being that of a Chaldean bedstead, and refers the reader to the Egyptian vignette (fac 1) showing an Egyptian lion couch. This immediately tells us several things: (1) mixed iconography in transmission, (2) Chaldean means Aramean, and refers generally to Aram-Naharaim (Naharina), or Padan-Aram, which was the area from which Abraham originally came and to which his descendants returned to find wives (Harran). See map #9 in the 1979 LDS Bible.

We know that Facsimile 1 was at the very beginning of the rolled papyrus. Thus, we know that Facsimile 1 was at the start of the papyrus and was immediately followed by the Small Sensen. It makes sense, then, that our modern day BOA in the Pearl of Great Price begins first with the picture of Facsimile 1 and then starts with the Book of Abraham text. This makes sense because the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar indicates that the BOA is translated from the Small Sensen portion which we know immediately followed Facsimile 1.

Since Egyptians often included more than one document on the same papyrus, and because the estimated length of the Hor-Sensen is enough to accommodate it, the Book of Abraham could easily have been included on that same papyrus -- with the Sensen text and facsimile 1 at the commencement of that record.

Therefore, it appears that we have the papyri from which Joseph believed he translated the BOA. Of course, everyone including the apologists agree that Joseph’s translation of both Facsimile 1 and the Small Sensen are incorrect (they are common Egyptian funerary papyri from about 2000 years after Abraham’s time). So we’re left with the BOA either being revelation from God or from missing papyri. For the reasons outlined above, critics argue that neither seems to be very likely.

I know of no apologists who agree that Joseph's explanations for the images in fac 1 are incorrect, nor do they agree that Joseph thought that the Hor-Sensen is the Book of Abraham.

It might be well to take the offhand statements of ill-wishers cum grano salis, just as you might the perhaps not very well-informed defenses of faithful LDS. Because these matters are so complex and subject to such a wide spectrum of interpretation, this should be a matter of informed scrutiny.

I provided a truncated discussion of the major issues on this board a year ago, and you can find it online now at http://www.scribd.co...Book-of-Abraham .

Good luck!

Edited May 17, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

I'm not sure what is meant by "direct revelation from God," but the matter of "numerous anachronisms" entails apriori assumptions about what constitutes an "anachronism," and skips the all important matter of the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

The "anachronisms" you list are not actually anachronisms, and the nature of transmitted texts is that they tend to gather contemporary material as they are copied, translated, and passed on. The Bible is an excellent example of this, containing as it does thousands of apparent anachronisms. None of the features of the story of Abraham in Genesis, for example, is in the language spoken by Abraham, and none of the manuscript copies of Paul's letters were actually signed by him (even though he claims to do so in the originals, which no longer exist).

The Egyptian grammar effort of Joseph and his brethren (his scribes wrote nearly all of it) was an attempt to create either a translation key, or to create a cipher key. In fact, William Phelps had already begun working on ciphers before the mummies and papyri arrived in Kirtland. The effort was an obvious failure, and died aborning (they gave up without finishing it). Revelation may provide a translation, but it does not teach one how to read Egyptian. Other issues intrude to make it unlikely that Joseph in fact thought the Sensen text was the Book of Abraham.

The context of Abraham 1:12-13 is that sacrificial action at an altar set up in N. Syria is going on, and the text of Abraham here speaks of the form of that altar being that of a Chaldean bedstead, and refers the reader to the Egyptian vignette (fac 1) showing an Egyptian lion couch. This immediately tells us several things: (1) mixed iconography in transmission, (2) Chaldean means Aramean, and refers generally to Aram-Naharaim (Naharina), or Padan-Aram, which was the area from which Abraham originally came and to which his descendants returned to find wives (Harran). See map #9 in the 1979 LDS Bible.

Since Egyptians often included more than one document on the same papyrus, and because the estimated length of the Hor-Sensen is enough to accommodate it, the Book of Abraham could easily have been included on that same papyrus -- with the Sensen text and facsimile 1 at the commencement of that record.

It might be well to take the offhand statements of ill-wishers cum grano salis, just as you might the perhaps not very well-informed defenses of faithful LDS. Because these matters are so complex and subject to such a wide spectrum of interpretation, this should be a matter of informed scrutiny.

I provided a truncated discussion of the major issues on this board a year ago, and you can find it online now at http://www.scribd.co...Book-of-Abraham .

Good luck!

I'll try to email you something tommorow about a BoA topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'll try to email you something tommorow about a BoA topic.

I'll look forward to it.

[mfbukowski]

Why is it that apologists know this, but Joseph and every prophet since didn't know this?

I perhaps disagree with what you think you know about what they know.

[mfbukowski]

Easy, from where I'm sitting. They aren't anachronisms, and the facsimiles aren't "mistranslated" . . .

Exactly.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Easy, from where I'm sitting. They aren't anachronisms, and the facsimiles aren't "mistranslated" . . .

Exactly.

I searched FAIR and FARMS again for any information on Book of Abraham anachronisms and found only one article (or book?) that referenced it. It's by Kevin Barney. He says, "Thompson posits a number of anachronisms to Abraham's day in the Book of Abraham. As things stand, we would appear to have three choices when faced with a purported anachronism in the text: (a) deny that the anachronism exists and assert that, although it has not yet been attested in an extant source, the posited characteristic does indeed date back to the Middle Bronze Age; (b) acknowledge the anachronism, but assign it to Joseph Smith as a translator's anachronism, which does not in and of itself compromise the Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient source; or © acknowledge the anachronism and assign it to Joseph Smith as the modern author of the text. The Semitic Adaptation theory, by suggesting that the text underwent an ancient transmission, allows a fourth option: that we acknowledge the anachronism but assign it to an ancient redactor."

Are you two of the belief that the fourth is the right one? I have never studied the Semitic Adaptation theory. I'll have to look into it.

[Johnnie Cake]

The assumption that God speaks in words and dictates complete English paragraphs word for word is just plain superstition.

If not word for word....then why did the bishop of my youth require me to repeat the water sacrament prayer 4 times just to make sure I repeated it "Word for Word" as supposedly whispered from God's mouth into Joseph's Ear?

It seem jsut too convenient that words matter WHEN words matter...and when exact word for word translation gets in the way out of necessity to explain away a difficulty in the so called translation of various LDS Scripture...Words no longer matter...rather convenient me thinks...

[Johnnie Cake]

So perhaps God included the anachronisms on purpose knowing that they would be discovered and encourage members to rely more on their faith than evidence. Did I understand you correctly? I hadn't thought of that before.

Or maybe....just maybe those anachronisms were put there by Joseph Smith cuz Joseph didn't know when he wrote the BoM...that they would become anachronism as science advanced beyond the basic understanding and false assumptions that Joseph put in his book.

[mfbukowski]

I searched FAIR and FARMS again for any information on Book of Abraham anachronisms and found only one article (or book?) that referenced it. It's by Kevin Barney. He says, "Thompson posits a number of anachronisms to Abraham's day in the Book of Abraham. As things stand, we would appear to have three choices when faced with a purported anachronism in the text: (a) deny that the anachronism exists and assert that, although it has not yet been attested in an extant source, the posited characteristic does indeed date back to the Middle Bronze Age; (b) acknowledge the anachronism, but assign it to Joseph Smith as a translator's anachronism, which does not in and of itself compromise the Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient source; or © acknowledge the anachronism and assign it to Joseph Smith as the modern author of the text. The Semitic Adaptation theory, by suggesting that the text underwent an ancient transmission, allows a fourth option: that we acknowledge the anachronism but assign it to an ancient redactor."

Are you two of the belief that the fourth is the right one? I have never studied the Semitic Adaptation theory. I'll have to look into it.

I have no idea what Barney means by "anachronism" in this context, but I really don't know or care much if there was an "ancient redactor" or not.

Frankly I see no need to posit one. I am not a scholar, I am a philosopher. I prefer to use reason and come up with simple explanations which typically challenge others underlying assumptions

I believe as a religious principle that in some sense Joseph was "channeling" Abraham, by the power of God. The religious message is all I care about- how it came to be is, to me, frankly irrelevant and I have found the more complicated a theory is, the more can go wrong with it.

Since ultimately none of these beliefs make sense unless we accept they are from God, I just start with that as a premise, since I have a testimony of that. Starting with that premise cuts to the chase and avoids unnecessary intellectual double-talk, perhaps of the variety you have quoted above.

That premise will eventually come up anyway, so why not start with it as a frank admission? Keep it simple- that's my view!

[mfbukowski]

If not word for word....then why did the bishop of my youth require me to repeat the water sacrament prayer 4 times just to make sure I repeated it "Word for Word" as supposedly whispered from God's mouth into Joseph's Ear?

It seem jsut too convenient that words matter WHEN words matter...and when exact word for word translation gets in the way out of necessity to explain away a difficulty in the so called translation of various LDS Scripture...Words no longer matter...rather convenient me thinks...

I am sorry you had that experience and that it had such an impact that you still remember it.

We say the prayers of ordinances exactly in obedience to God and our desire to be as perfect as we can be at least in outward manifestations of our obedience.

Incidentally I think that policy has changed. At least in the temple it has. If a patron "gets it wrong" we now correct it once and then let it go, since God judges our intents. We try to get it "right" but as humans sometimes it just doesn't happen.

[mfbukowski]

Everyone is still using the word "anachronism" without defining it.

I guess I will have to deny all assertions that there ANY anachronisms with a CFR just to get a definition from someone.