Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

The History of the Church entry stating that the Alphabets and Grammar were begun in late July 1835, were composed by Willard Richards, probably with the help of Phelps and/or Joseph Smith. This entry is our best source and clearly makes JS responsible for the content of the Alphabets and Grammar, not Phelps.

Diary of Joseph Smith for Nov 15, 1843, when Joseph “suggested the Idea of preparing a grammer [sic] of the Egyptian Language.”  At least by that time, Joseph was on board with the idea hatched by Phelps, Richards, and whomever else.

55 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

There is no evidence that Phelps was responsible for the cipher-key you mention. The English content was the pure language definitions JS gave for God, angels, and man. There’s no reason to conclude the characters were from Phelps. Everything Gee says to pin the Grammar on Phelps is wrong.

 

The Grammar isn’t directly about the BOA, but it preceded the BOA. Abraham 1:1-3 possibly dates to July 1835, but Abraham 1:4-2:18 was dictated in November 1835. The evidence is clear.

You are overlooking the fact that Phelps mentions his cipher-key work in that letter to his wife before the arrival in Kirtland of any Egyptian materials.  That makes it Phelps' idea, not Joseph's, and we cannot establish that Joseph used that approach to "translating" any papyri, which would not work in any case.  Phelps initiated the method, and we have every reason to believe that the Hieratic Egyptian copied on the MSS came after the BofA text was already present.

Joseph Smith’s translation had reached Abraham 3:13 by at least August 1835, and the extant Kirtland Egyptian Papers were copied from that Original MS,[1] beginning with AB 1 (in the hand of Phelps).  Gee's detective work makes a convincing case for the extent of the now missing Original Manuscript at that time.  Wherein does Gee make any false statements? 

[1] Gee, Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 16-22,28.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Vance]

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

They used to until it was resoundingly disproved by egyptologists.

Again, you are making a claim without any evidence or reference.  So put up or shut up.

And, again, I won't hold my breath while you go looking for something that isn't there.

[Vance]

14 hours ago, Exiled said:

They used to until it was resoundingly disproved by egyptologists.  Then they regrouped and proposed the missing scroll hypothesis (the scroll must be missing because otherwise it looks bad for Mr. Smith) and the catalyst hypothesis (God fooled him into believing the translation that wasn't).

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Just more unsupported drivel.  Either provide references or shut up.

[Vance]

15 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

The characters in the margins of the translation manuscript are from JSP XI. It is clear that the English text is meant to be a translation of the characters. How do I know that? See my first video.

Ok, I asked for the claim and you provided none.  You can make of the scribbles what ever you want.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't provide a reference where JS claimed that the "book of breathings" was the source of the BOA.

[Vance]

15 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

The burden is not mine but Gee's and Muhlestein's. They commit the fallacy of possible proof. They have no evidence for their assertion for another record and there are strong reasons against it.

 

So, descriptions of lengthier scrolls than the fragment extant, provided by people who saw them, aren't evidence that they existed?

[Vance]

15 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

I said: "Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings.

No one has yet provided a reference to support this claim.

Can ANYONE please provide a reference where "JS claimed he translated the BOM from 'the Book of Breathings.' "?.

In his own hand would be preferable.

 

15 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers.

I would say that people who claim that "JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings" are the real deceivers here.

[cdowis]

19 hours ago, Exiled said:

Also, please take a look at Dehlin's interviews with David Bokovoy where Mr. Bokovoy uses the documentary hypothesis to show how Abraham (probably mythical anyway) could not have written the BofA due to the many anachronisms contained therein.

"Anachronism" is an interesting word.  The logical fallacy  "not found, not exist" has proven itself particularly troublesome when using so called anachronisms.  You may find this helpful

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by cdowis

[aussieguy55]

Doesn't the fact that the name "Hor" appears both on fac 1 and the Book of Breathings  indicate that they thought that was the Book of Abraham (or pretended was)?

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bushman does repeat that notion in his Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 63-64, but it is purely by-gosh-and-by-golly, not science.  Calling it "bad science" doesn't really do the trick

I am interested to see what evidence you have that places Smith, Bushman & and even Hauglid/Jensen, in the "gosh and by golly" category, and how the evidence is better that  supports Gee's claims that Phelps originated the method, not Joseph. 

Here is what Hauglid/Jensen had to say in  Vol #4 of the  Joseph Smith Papers, Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts.

Quote

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, recalled later in her life that Joseph Smith was given driven instruction to make a copy of "the charecters composing the alphabet[,] which were called reformed Egyptian.

Joseph Smith's interest in Egyptian language dovetailed with his fascination with ancient cultures. Smith and his followers identified many of the sacred texts he dictated as rooted in Adamic, Abrahamic, Egyptian, Enochian, Johannine, or ancient New World cultures. These texts prompted an interest in ancient languages within the early church and an anticipation that additional ancient texts would be revealed. Early Latter-day Saints believed that ancient cultures provided a conduit to a purer language, perhaps inspired in part by the story from the Book of Mormon of an ancient people who retrained their language when God cursed other languages at the Tower of Babel. Shortly following the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith-with his wife Emma Smith, Cowdery, and other scribes--began work on what they came to understand as an inspired revision or "new translation" of the Bible. Members of the church would learn from Joseph Smith's Bible revision that " a book of remembrance was kept" in ancient times, written "in the Language of Adam." The Bible revision posited that Adam and Eve's children "were taught to read & write having a language[e] which was pure & undefiled". Smith perhaps felt it was part of his prophetic responsibility to unlock this pure language and that doing so would uncover ancient truths. Shortly [in 1832] after Smith dictated the narrative of Adam and Eve's pure language, he created a short document exploring " A Sample of pure Language. The surviving manuscript lists words and their meaning in what Smith believed was the pure Adamic language.

The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations Volume 4 Robin Jensen & Brian Hauglid P.xxi-xxii

Also, in his excellent article The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: “A Knowledge of Hidden Languages Brian Hauglid says that the methods used in both the 1831 pure language document and the Phelps 1835 letter are different from what was used in the Egyptian documents. This provides more evidence that Joseph was directly involved in  the method we find the 1835 Phelps letter to his wife  because it was the same method used in the earlier "Pure Language" specimen, that cannot be ascribed to anyone other than Joseph. Bolding Mine.

Quote

In reviewing the extant evidence related to the Abraham and Egyptian projects, it seems proper to make a few observations and at least some tentative conclusions. As to Joseph Smith’s involvement, his journal entries and the manuscript evidence make it quite clear that, at least during the last half of 1835, he was quite involved in the projects.

We can also see from the evidence that Joseph’s interest in ancient languages stems from his earlier work with the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and his translation of the Bible. In particular, Joseph seems to have developed a substantial interest in the pure language of Adam, which may have prompted an ongoing language project that became reenergized with the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and evolved into a more devoted Egyptian project.

The language project also coincided with Joseph Smith’s efforts to translate the papyri to produce the Book of Abraham. Whether the Egyptian language project was some kind of study aid for the translation project cannot be definitively ascertained. But it appears from the 1835 journal entries that the two projects were roughly contemporary with each other, which denotes some kind of relationship between the two projects. Although at this point the precise relationship may presently elude scholars, in my view, separating them too rigidly would likely do violence to ever reaching a better understanding of the historical context.

The surviving 1835 Egyptian alphabet and grammar documents may not offer much in the way of furthering our knowledge of Egyptology, but they do evince a quite serious and even carefully considered system of language study that becomes at once both innovative and interesting. This can be seen in the way that the three Egyptian alphabet documents are assiduously connected to the larger grammar book.

The Egyptian documents also seem to evidence two variant approaches with the arrival of the papyri operating as the terminus pro quem of the earlier method. In the former methodology, seen in the 1831 “pure language” document and in Phelps’s May 1835 letter, definitions and sounds seem to be produced first and then are matched to characters later. Perhaps it was believed that Joseph received the definitions and sounds through revelation and then in some kind of language study attempted to match the revealed information to actual characters. However, after the appearance of the papyri, when foreign characters were more readily available, there seems to have been an effort to draw from the characters first and create the definitions and sounds later. This appears to have been less successful and may explain why the Egyptian alphabet documents were eventually abandoned for the grammar book. In essence, putting the characters first did not work as well as putting the definitions and sounds first.

The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: “A Knowledge of Hidden Languages” Brian M. Hauglid

Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832

Whatever Phelp's  involvement here is, clearly he was following Joseph Smith's lead, not the other way around. We can see that from the 1831 document Joseph had already started this process, a process that Phelps repeated in his letter to his wife but that was not continued in the Egyptian papers.

Edited December 25, 2018 by CA Steve

[Dan Vogel]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Diary of Joseph Smith for Nov 15, 1843, when Joseph “suggested the Idea of preparing a grammer [sic] of the Egyptian Language.”  At least by that time, Joseph was on board with the idea hatched by Phelps, Richards, and whomever else.

What? The History of the Church says JS was responsible for the Alphabets and Grammar, not Phelps. There is 0 evidence that it was Phelps. Gee got it all wrong. He didn't even mention the reference in History of the Church, although he claims the translation was begun in July 1835. The only reason he knows that is because of the HC.

 

Quote

You are overlooking the fact that Phelps mentions his cipher-key work in that letter to his wife before the arrival in Kirtland of any Egyptian materials.  That makes it Phelps' idea, not Joseph's, and we cannot establish that Joseph used that approach to "translating" any papyri, which would not work in any case.  Phelps initiated the method, and we have every reason to believe that the Hieratic Egyptian copied on the MSS came after the BofA text was already present.

Phelps wrote the sample of the pure language before the Egyptian papyri because he was living with JS at the time. The English content is JS's from 1832. When the papyri arrived the same plan was used because it was JS's plan, as the HC says. Phelps would have no reason to make up characters to put with JS's definitions of God, Son, and Angels in the Adamic language. That wasn't his role as scribe.

 

There is no reason to believe the text of the BOA came before the Alphabets or the Grammar. Once you understand the content, then you can see the progression of project from the Valuable Discovery notebooks, which deal with the Amenhotep Book of the Dead, to the Alphabets, which have two parts with definitions. Part 1 is basically about the owners of the scrolls discussed in the VD notebooks. Part 2 deals with the pure language, including the same characters from the previous effort. This is followed by characters from the columns of the Book of Breathings, which evolves into the Egyptian astronomy. At the end appears the first two characters from JSP XI, which as you know was connected to the fragment containing Facsimile 1. 

 

Quote

Joseph Smith’s translation had reached Abraham 3:13 by at least August 1835, and the extant Kirtland Egyptian Papers were copied from that Original MS,[1] beginning with AB 1 (in the hand of Phelps).  Gee's detective work makes a convincing case for the extent of the now missing Original Manuscript at that time.  Wherein does Gee make any false statements? 

[1] Gee, Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 16-22,28.

Gee and other apologists have used "Shinehah" as evidence that Abraham 3:13 was dictated by the time JS used it as a code name in the D&C. However, the code names were probably decided on before typesetting began several months before the papyri arrived in early July 1835. Since chapters 3-5 show evidence of JS Hebrew lessons, which began in January 1836, they date to Nauvoo. JS's journal clearly states that on 8-9 March 1842, JS was "translating" for the next issue of the T&S, and that issue began with Abraham 2:19. It is therefore more likely that JS in 1842 borrowed Shinehah from the code names. However, the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation that speaks of both the “mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman” and the “plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt” (D&C 117:8). An early copy of this revelation in the handwriting of Edward Partridge as well as two other sources close to Joseph Smith read “Olea Shinihah.”

 

[Dan Vogel]

7 hours ago, Vance said:

Ok, I asked for the claim and you provided none.  You can make of the scribbles what ever you want.  But the fact of the matter is that you can't provide a reference where JS claimed that the "book of breathings" was the source of the BOA.

I'm sorry you expected a quote from JS, but as I explained my statement was a conclusion based on what JS did. He claimed he was translating from the Book of Breathings when he put the characters, even invented characters in the margins of his translations. That's better. 

[Dan Vogel]

7 hours ago, Vance said:

So, descriptions of lengthier scrolls than the fragment extant, provided by people who saw them, aren't evidence that they existed?

There are no such descriptions. Watch my 7th video.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Dan Vogel said:

 He claimed he was translating from the Book of Breathings when he put the characters, even invented characters in the margins of his translations. That's better. 

SECOND REQUEST ==>>  CFR, please provide  us the documentation.  

Dan,  you  might want to consider making  a slight change in your post.  We actually understand the difference between a statement of  fact and a statement of opinion/ conclusion.

Edited December 25, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Doesn't the fact that the name "Hor" appears both on fac 1 and the Book of Breathings  indicate that they thought that was the Book of Abraham (or pretended was)?

So, you are admitting they were able to read Egyptian and recognized this name?

Interesting......

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

Edited December 25, 2018 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am interested to see what evidence you have that places Smith, Bushman & and even Hauglid/Jensen, in the "gosh and by golly" category,

You had said: "I think you would agree that it certainly wasn't revelatory as it applies to the GAEL, etc., so that leaves us with scientific. Of course it was really bad science. They failed because they had absolutely no idea what they were doing."  This was a response to the by gosh and by golly approach of Phelps, Richards, Williams, and Parrish.  You cited Bushman on the Lucy Mack Smith comment.  I merely affirmed Bushman's additional use of that comment, and am mystified that you would interpret any of that to mean that I have contempt for the fine scholarship of Bushman, Hauglid, or Jensen.  You missed my point entirely by ignoring your own premise.

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

and how the evidence is better that  supports Gee's claims that Phelps originated the method, not Joseph. 

I actually had Bill Schryver in mind, but no matter . . .

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Here is what Hauglid/Jensen had to say in  Vol #4 of the  Joseph Smith Papers, Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts.

Also, in his excellent article The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: “A Knowledge of Hidden Languages Brian Hauglid says that the methods used in both the 1831 pure language document and the Phelps 1835 letter are different from what was used in the Egyptian documents. This provides more evidence that Joseph was directly involved in  the method we find the 1835 Phelps letter to his wife  because it was the same method used in the earlier "Pure Language" specimen, that cannot be ascribed to anyone other than Joseph. Bolding Mine.

Sample of Pure Language, between circa 4 and circa 20 March 1832

Whatever Phelp's  involvement here is, clearly he was following Joseph Smith's lead, not the other way around. We can see that from the 1831 document Joseph had already started this process, a process that Phelps repeated in his letter to his wife but that was not continued in the Egyptian papers.

Excellent comments.  I hope that you will flesh this approach out a little more.  I notice that Dan is partially onboard with some similar ideas.

[Exiled]

21 hours ago, cdowis said:

"Anachronism" is an interesting word.  The logical fallacy  "not found, not exist" has proven itself particularly troublesome when using so called anachronisms.  You may find this helpful

 

One can always have hope something will materialize in the future.  Anyway, I hope you are having a wonderful Christmas.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

One can always have hope something will materialize in the future.  Anyway, I hope you are having a wonderful Christmas.

The anachronism argument is based on a logical fallacy -- "not found, not exist", and  the assumption that it  will not materialize in the future.
A futile attempt to prove a negative by simply  making an assertion.

You must be new here.

Merry Christmas.

Edited December 25, 2018 by cdowis

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

The anachronism argument is based on a logical fallacy -- "not found, not exist", and  the assumption that it  will not materialize in the future.
A futile attempt to prove a negative by simply  making an assertion.

You must be new here.

Merry Christmas.

Maybe I am new to the burden shifting attempt you are making? Proponent says book of abraham is historical and critic replies that the misuse of egyptus and pharaoh seem out of place, that the chaldeans existed later, that abraham's astronomy is a 19th century concoction, etc. JS probably made it up for his religious purposes. Also, historians question whether Abraham or Moses or Noah even existed. Propenent then says absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence and challenges critic to disprove these possibilities. While true, this applies to almost anything.  Anything is true because perhaps in the future someone will find something that will bolster whatever claim? Nevertheless, it is your burden to show that the boa is historical .... that is the claim, right? Maybe start by showing that Abraham existed?

[Dan Vogel]

22 hours ago, cdowis said:

SECOND REQUEST ==>>  CFR, please provide  us the documentation.  

Dan,  you  might want to consider making  a slight change in your post.  We actually understand the difference between a statement of  fact and a statement of opinion/ conclusion.

I haven't changed anything. I'm trying to explain that I didn't imply we have an explicit quote from JS, which isn't the only way to prove something. Here's my statement.

 

Quote

You are the one who thought you were confounding my position on the BOA by asserting the catalyst theory.

 

 

Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings. That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers. That does not require mindreading. Saying he believed he was translating when he really wasn’t requires mindreading because you have to know what JS thought. Denying the second position requires mindreading, but those proposing the first are under no obligation to do so. It’s merely an ad hoc escape from an unwanted conclusion. It’s apologetics, not a religious position.

Nothing in that statement calls for a quote from JS. This is what is agreed by proponents of the two theories based on the characters in the margins of the translation documents. The catalyst theory as described by Robin Jenson claims JS believed he was translating the Book of Breathings when he was actually receiving a revelation.

 

It is dishonest to quote part of my statement and then insist on your interpretation, especially since no one has bothered to respond to the statement.

[aussieguy55]

In the printing  picture  do you notice any chisel marks above the 'slave"  Anubis  head. Google images of  Anubis show two ears. You notice a rough markings on the head on the right side of the one ear?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

I haven't changed anything. I'm trying to explain that I didn't imply we have an explicit quote from JS, which isn't the only way to prove something. Here's my statement.

 

Nothing in that statement calls for a quote from JS. This is what is agreed by proponents of the two theories based on the characters in the margins of the translation documents. The catalyst theory as described by Robin Jenson claims JS believed he was translating the Book of Breathings when he was actually receiving a revelation.

 

It is dishonest to quote part of my statement and then insist on your interpretation, especially since no one has bothered to respond to the statement.

Oh I will when I get around to it.

Your absurd attempt to psychoanalyze a historic figure while stating that your opposition is mind reading is a blatant self contradiction.

You know he was deliberately deceptive while others who attribute him other motives are mind reading? Clear contradiction.

The entire question is irrelevant to.the value of the art produced anyway but is essential to your emotional attempt to discredit Joseph as a prophet and is just as "apologetic" for your position as they are for theirs. 

I would find it humorous except you act knowing that scholarship is irrelevant as objective evidence against spiritual beliefs while they do it perhaps out of ignorance.

It is a sly and cunning sophistry you present. 

[mikwut]

mfbukowski,

I am responding to your response to Dan not our previous chain.

Dan's position doesn't require mind reading, just reading the historical record. What are you missing from that?

There is no historical record for a catalyst theory, or that they weren't translating. Without that evidence the catalyst theory or any like it requires the one who accepts it to read Joseph's mind cause there is no record otherwise to support that idea.

This is so transparently simple I am baffled by your response. It is just wrong to play the games your playing with evidence and playing three cups hide the ball with facts.

Edited December 26, 2018 by mikwut

[Calm]

Deception requires intent, has intent been demonstrated?

Getting it wrong is not equivalent to deception.  He has to know he is wrong  

How can intent to deceive be demonstrated here?  Did Joseph say something like 'I know this isn’t what I am saying it is'?

If not, it is mindreading to assume intent to deceive, imo. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Calm

[Vance]

On 12/24/2018 at 8:17 PM, Dan Vogel said:

I'm sorry you expected a quote from JS, . . . .

Well, yes I expected a quote because you said he made the claim. 

On 12/24/2018 at 8:17 PM, Dan Vogel said:

but as I explained my statement was a conclusion based on what JS did.

So, it is only your OPINION and not a fact.  Now we are getting somewhere. 

On 12/24/2018 at 8:17 PM, Dan Vogel said:

He claimed he was translating from the Book of Breathings . . .

There you go again, falsely representing the situation.  He didn't make that claim.  The Church didn't make that claim.  It is only your opinion.

On 12/24/2018 at 8:17 PM, Dan Vogel said:

 when he put the characters, even invented characters in the margins of his translations. That's better. 

You know, you would do well to understand the definitions of "translate" used in the early 1800s.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Translate

 

Quote

 

Translate

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

You are stuck on the wrong definition.

[Vance]

On 12/24/2018 at 8:21 PM, Dan Vogel said:

There are no such descriptions. Watch my 7th video.

You ignoring  them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote

 

Hugh Nibley cites a personal reference to scrolls clearly different from the recovered papyri. In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to President Smith, one of the rolls of papyri "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

Nibley 1968,"Phase I," 101

 

There is some evidence for you.