Book of Abraham

[William Schryver]

I've now been exposed to everything the critics have to say about the KEP. At least I think it's just about everything. I understand that Metcalfe has a book coming out -- but from Kevin's brief description of the content, I'm not sure it is going to speak to the topic of the KEP anymore than he already has.

Is anyone aware of any pending FARMS (or other LDS apologetic) works that speak to the issue? I'm still sifting through the older FARMS stuff and will be reading Nibley's "Egyptian Endowment" book in the next several days. I think I've read everything that is linked on the FAIR website.

I guess I should not be surprised that people see what they want to see in these things. It is apparent to me that a person does have to approach the question with a certain amount of bias one way or the other in order to be persuaded that the interpretation says one thing or another. This is, in my opinion, a commentary on the inherent opacity of the documents themselves.

In any event, the jury inside my mind remains sequestered and has yet to render its final verdict. I've found it somewhat of a challenge to compartmentalize things sufficiently to play judge, jury, prosecutor, and defender all at the same time. But, I have some advantage in this over other people because I'm schizophrenic and so am I.

There remain a few questions:

- Has it ever been ascertained who scribbled in the Egyptian symbols in the left hand column? They are manifestly written by the same individual on each of the "translation" manuscripts.

- Is someone withholding the rest of the translation until some time in the future? Could this possibly be one of the things to which Elder Oaks referred in his most recent conference address? Who knows, maybe Paul O. is the one holding out on us until such time as we demonstrate enough faith. (Just kidding Paul -- chill!)

- If Joseph Smith simply made all of this stuff up (including the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and everything else he produced of a literary nature) wouldn't he qualify as one of the greatest writers in the history of the English-language?

[William Schryver]

Provis,

I hope you are not eqauting the "Brave Sir Robin" poem with Paul O.  If he chose not to respond, it is not because he cannot answer a question but the attitude in which this thread evovled.

Jon

I'm sorry if that was the interpretation.

The answer is NO. I was simply laughing to myself about a long-ago-forgotten Monty Python scene that PacMan had brought back to mind.

I don't think Paul O. ran away at all. He's very confident in his views and he will be back to defend them again. Soon, I hope. I do admit, however, as I indicated in my previous post, that I don't understand to what he is alluding when he speaks about the profound meaning in the KEP. Maybe if I find a copy of it and look at it long enough, I'll begin to understand.

Paul has obviously invested a lot of time on this stuff. And he knows his details. He also seems to have at least a rudimentary grasp of Egyptian philology. And I'll bet he's toweling off after his bath and getting ready to post to the thread right now ...

[Jon Haugo]

Provis,

Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. I like British comedy. One of my favorites is Red Dwarf. None of my friends like it though.

Jon

[Dale]

The Kirtland papers look like it was used to construct the Book of Abraham. Ed Asments Reducing dissonance essay presented his case regarding that. A copy of it was published in Word of god, essays on Mormon Scripture edited by Dan Vogel.

[William Schryver]

Provis,

Sorry to have jumped to conclusions.  I like British comedy.  One of my favorites is Red Dwarf.  None of my friends like it though. 

Jon

Momentary off-topic post:

Did you watch The Vicar of Dibley that was on PBS a few years back?

There was one episode when my wife and I just about ruptured our spleens! It was borderline risque and very irreverent -- but, oh my! It was hilarious. In fact, I think I'm going to do an internet search and see if it's available on DVD. My daughter is in London for study abroad for the next month, maybe she can find it cheap over there.

British "humour" is certainly an acquired taste. But some of it just kills me.

Edit: They have all three seasons available in a package at Amazon for $45! I'm reaching for my Visa card right now ...

[Jon Haugo]

I didn't see it. I have watched a number of Monty Python episodes. You are right in that it is an aquired taste. One Red Dwarf episode had me on my knees and I almost threw up.

Jon

[noel00]

You should enjoy other British comedies like Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearences and Waiting to Die. The people I find on these shows are more human and less perfect than those in many American sitcoms. Also another excellent show is Heartbeat, a show with many songs from the 60s in the background.

[alter idem]

I don't think Paul O. ran away at all. He's very confident in his views and he will be back to defend them again. Soon, I hope. I do admit, however, as I indicated in my previous post, that I don't understand to what he is alluding when he speaks about the profound meaning in the KEP. Maybe if I find a copy of it and look at it long enough, I'll begin to understand.

I think I know what Paul O. is alluding to. I think he has an understanding of things which have been given to him through faith, pondering, prayer and academic effort. Some knowledge should not be shared with others. It's usually met with skepticism, even ridicule and if given to those who don't understand it, it does no good and can even be to their detriment.

The important message is that those who want to find the truths he understands, need to do their own searching for answers and should not discount the worth of these things just because some critics or apologists fail to see their value.

[Dale]

With Paul & the KEP he is a firm believer in the Book of Abraham, and cannot see it as being produced without the KEP. So he see's truth in it others cannot see unless open to it. He explored the missing papyrus idea, and the idea they were not used, and came to believe the missing papyrus idea bogus, and that the KEP was used in translation.

What I have seen of the KEP looks like a lot of gibberish. But concepts from the KEP end up in the Book of Abraham, so that part is not gibberish. It's just that they don't literally relate to the characters that if literally translated would not have any relation to the Book of Abraham.

[Daniel Peterson]

Tangentially, but for the record, I couldn't give a rat's derri

[Paul Osborne]

I don't think Paul O. ran away at all.  He's very confident in his views and he will be back to defend them again.  Soon, I hope.  I do admit, however, as I indicated in my previous post, that I don't understand to what he is alluding when he speaks about the profound meaning in the KEP.  Maybe if I find a copy of it and look at it long enough, I'll begin to understand.

I think I know what Paul O. is alluding to. I think he has an understanding of things which have been given to him through faith, pondering, prayer and academic effort. Some knowledge should not be shared with others. It's usually met with skepticism, even ridicule and if given to those who don't understand it, it does no good and can even be to their detriment.

The important message is that those who want to find the truths he understands, need to do their own searching for answers and should not discount the worth of these things just because some critics or apologists fail to see their value.

Right on idem! That's how I feel about it.

I have been trying to avoid arguing about the BofA for my health's sake because I tend to slip into anxiety really easy. I haven't had to dip into the tranquilizers for some time - but back to the bottle I went. Oh well.

I wish everyone well. I claim no special revelation but simply say that I believe those things are sacred and have great value. I encourage others to research the KEP and study these things for themselves.

Paul O

[Kevin Graham]

Dan Peterson: This is, obviously, a quite peripheral issue, but could you please be specific about my alleged use of the term jackass? I've just performed a comprehensive search for posts from me here at FAIR that include that word. There are three. One involves a joke about Reagan and Gorbachev. Another refers to a four-legged animal.

Dan, first of all let me say that I wouldn`t be terribly offended by that term, as I typically understand it as a colorful way to say arrogant. As you know, this jackass business started when Tradd Button was telling people in the ZLMB chat room that you had called me a jackass just days earlier. You responded to my email saying you did not remember that, strongly suggesting you didn't say it, although not clearly denying it. I mentioned this on FAIR to make the point that Tradd doesn`t always get his facts straight before speaking. The fact that you have to look this stuff up indicates that you believe you very well could have said it. I didn't believe you said it at first, but then I realized later how often you use this word. For example, I found an old email from Aaron Fairchild - one of your old students and close friend of "Junia" - who told me that you said back in 1999, while walking in the hallway at BYU, that "JP Holding is a Jackass."

In response to your reference from a conversation we had nearly a year ago, I noted that you misunderstood my point. My point was that you didn`t call me a jackass; it was a backhanded comment to Tradd. But I do remember quite vividly a discussion you and I had shortly afterwards, where you made the subtle, but unmistakeable insinuation that I was in fact a jackass. Some sarcastic comment like, "Sometimes people online are misunderstood as not being a jackass." I am sure everyone read this, as you typically draw a big crowd. I didn`t complain because, as I said, it doesn`t offend me. I just find the double-standard a bit absurd when an entire thread is hijacked on the pretext that Brent called someone a "jackass" in self-defense.

I cannot find the reference I am referring to in the search engine, so maybe it was later edited or maybe I am not searching properly. In any event I will stop saying you said this.

Now since Deixos has commented about offensive posts, welcoming us to point them out, and in Exegete's departure thread (now closed) some weird claims were made suggesting the "countermos" had instigated some kind of imaginary brawl, that Juliann is the victim of "hatred", et cetera, I thought I would outline how the KEP discussion unfolded since "offensive" posts are clearly still up and running:

=====================================================

Example #1: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15079&st=30

Exegete:

Hi Pahoran, Your position is utterly untenable (see here). (May 8 2006, 12:20 AM )

Paharon:

Thank you bReNt, I am well aware of your rather intense obsession with this subject, as well as your undeniable bias. This accounts not only for your vicious jabs at the late Professor Nibley, who was something you will never be, i.e. a first class scholar, but also for your desperation to debunk The Book of Abraham.(May 8 2006, 08:24 PM )

Exegete:

I must admit, this may well be the most substantive response you've composed. Congratulations (May 8 2006, 10:23 PM)

[QUESTION: Who started the hostility, Brent of Paharon?]

=====================================================

Example #2: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=15070&st=0

Pacman: What I am interested in is a personal "Top 10" from the critics (May 3 2006, 09:17 AM )

Kevin: I would say that the number one thing we have to deal with is the Book of Abraham. Thus far LDS apologetics hasn't produced compelling arguments. (May 3 2006, 09:36 AM )

Pacman: If there

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just a footnote - having read the thread and not really wanting to get into the debate -

I find all of the arguments about the construction of the alleged translation manuscripts in the KEP to be something of a red herring. They are largely irrelevant. There is nothing that can be conclusively ascertained by insisting on any particular ordering of the elements in these manuscripts, nor could anything terribly conclusive be drawn by distinguishing between multiple inks (except perhaps in arguments over old apologetics that generally aren't given a lot of thought today). These issues simply conceal (for most people) where the real discussion ought to be - which is about the chronologies of the various manuscripts. This thread rather demonstrates my opinion, as chronology has never become a significant issue here.

In this vein, I take exception to Ashment's chronology, which forms the foundation for many of Metcalfe's comments. I believe that Ashment's speculations are wrong. I believe they are inconsistent with other data - and I think that I am more than a little tired of the misuse (not limited to anyone in particular) of the alleged journal entries of Joseph in July of 1835 (from the DHC) when there was no journal kept in July of 1835, and the entires were fabricated (from unknown sources) in 1842 by Willard Richards. Either it accurately reflects a sequence of events in which a translation occured before the purchase of the mummies which contained references to Abraham (and thus prior to any work on the so-called translation manuscripts with the scribes) or it doesn't.

Personally, (contra Kevin), I find the argument of an attempt to construct an Egyptian grammar from an existing translation to be quite compelling. But then, I am not hampered in that belief by certain expectations placed on Joseph Smith in terms of what he is expected to know about the process and the texts himself.

Ben

[Kevin Graham]

Hey Ben, it s about time you jumped in. Stay awhile, the water is warm.

== There is nothing that can be conclusively ascertained by insisting on any particular ordering of the elements in these manuscripts, nor could anything terribly conclusive be drawn by distinguishing between multiple inks (except perhaps in arguments over old apologetics that generally aren't given a lot of thought today). These issues simply conceal (for most people) where the real discussion ought to be - which is about the chronologies of the various manuscripts. This thread rather demonstrates my opinion, as chronology has never become a significant issue here.

Ben have you done any work in this area since we talked a couple years ago? I remember that you were particularly interested in developing apologetics in this area awhile back, but I think you were, like me, waiting for more information to come forth (perhaps the color photos?).

== In this vein, I take exception to Ashment's chronology, which forms the foundation for many of Metcalfe's comments. I believe that Ashment's speculations are wrong. I believe they are inconsistent with other data - and I think that I am more than a little tired of the misuse (not limited to anyone in particular) of the alleged journal entries of Joseph in July of 1835 (from the DHC) when there was no journal kept in July of 1835, and the entires were fabricated (from unknown sources) in 1842 by Willard Richards.

I haven't really paid much attention to the chronology of events, as I don't see its significance. Does an argument of chronology somehow alter the implications of the KEP's and its apparent view that the Scroll of Hor is the source for the Book of Abraham?

== Either it accurately reflects a sequence of events in which a translation occured before the purchase of the mummies which contained references to Abraham (and thus prior to any work on the so-called translation manuscripts with the scribes) or it doesn't.

I would like to see a hard case made that the KEP couldn`t have been an attempt at translation, but even if this were true, it seems we still have the problem of explaining why these men, including Joseph Smith it seems, would be connecting Hor's scroll with the BoA in the first place.

== Personally, (contra Kevin), I find the argument of an attempt to construct an Egyptian grammar from an existing translation to be quite compelling.

I am not sure I disagree with this, but I guess it depends on how far you're going with it.

[Calm]

Even now, after everything has blown over Deixos is still making unwarranted threats to the participants here]

Maybe that's because certain participants can't stop harping on it.

[PacMan]

Paul,

I wanted to apologize if I pushed too hard. I think there were some genuine communication problems--I really (and still) don't know where you were going with some of your comments, and due to some of your comments I felt attacked. That being said, anytime someone (me in this case) justifies lashing out is probably reason to believe it was inappropriate. Sorry about that.

Kevin,

Your convenient editing was remarkable in that you failed to copy my explanation of why I said what I did, showing that you had no reason to take my statement personally. But in the case you didn't understand (or buy) that, then I apologize to you too.

Regards,

PacMan

[Benjamin McGuire]

Kevin writes:

I haven't really paid much attention to the chronology of events, as I don't see its significance. Does an argument of chronology somehow alter the implications of the KEP's and its apparent view that the Scroll of Hor is the source for the Book of Abraham?

We should just start by sying that the Scroll of Hor (at least as much of it as we can reasonably demonstrate existed) isn't the source of the Book of Abraham.

Efforts to suggest that another text was attached (Gee's current efforts in that direction are the best out there) exist primarily because the text indicates that facsimile 1 was attached to its source.

As far as chronologies go, if a translation exists before the alleged translation documents are produced, then they cannot have been a factor in the translation. All they would then show was that Joseph Smith believed that the characters were the source of the Book of Abraham. Whether he was right or wrong on that point is immaterial. For many, there is going to be an issue with the notion that he could have been wrong on this point.

Ben

[Kevin Graham]

No reason to take it personal Pac, I was just pointing out that Brent did not initiate hostilities. Your apology is appreciated, but the initial offending post was never edited. And you are a fresh newbie who jumped on two veteran posters, and should be the recipient of early warnings on how to conduct yourself. Exegete has been here for many years and has never caused problems for anyone; in fact he has been a pleasure to read, for both sides.

[PacMan]

Very good...as long as readers understand that my statements (while themselves were not edited) were out of context. I wasn't jumping on Brent...I was jumping on the assumption that due to his church position, we should extend him certain credit. I don't belive that, and gave a hypothetical (and hope he didn't think I was impugning him) of why. If those comments were out of order and untrue, then I apologize to him as well...but I was not attacking him, but an argument. I feel (in some cases) the credibility of people is skipped over, and where individuals have particular information that is not open to the public, their credibility becomes paramount. If you don't agree, I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from.

On the contrary, I have appreciated your posts and was in agreement with you regards to julieann (sp?). Also, I don't mind people telling me I'm wrong, and I don't have a problem with doing the same (if it's somehow substantiated).

I am still interested in your ideas on my new post on the 'alphabet.'

Regards,

PacMan

[Dunamis]

Comments about other posters and the board will be deleted. This thread will be closed if posters cannot get back to the topic.

[USU78]

I am fascinated by the issue of the order of production of the various papers related to the JS Papyri.

After reading every post in this lengthy thread, I have still seen nothing which persuades me that the KEP were not produced after the BoA was produced.

Did I miss something?

And, yes, I have read the Ashment offerings on the subject.

[William Schryver]

I am fascinated by the issue of the order of production of the various papers related to the JS Papyri.

After reading every post in this lengthy thread, I have still seen nothing which persuades me that the KEP were not produced after the BoA was produced.

Did I miss something?

And, yes, I have read the Ashment offerings on the subject.

The only thing you're missing is the presupposition that the KEP were the process by which the Book of Abraham was produced. But, for some people, that's a little harder to come by than it is for others.

[Dale]

Personally I am not sure the KEP was produced after the Book of Abraham either. It would take better studies than the poor ones available to convince me of that. At this point the critics of this studies look better.

Ashment I thought made a god case for the KEP use in translation. Though he did not firmly establish when they were made. He assumes when they were made, but so does the advocates missing papyrus idea. I think it may be said they may have been made at any time.

[USU78]

Ashment I thought made a god [sic] case for the KEP use in translation. Though he did not firmly establish when they were made.

[Emphasis added]

He assumes when they were made, but so does the advocates missing papyrus idea. I think it may be said they may have been made at any time.

Tu quoque is rather inapposite here, don't you agree? I wasn't advocating for missing papyrus, though it is, in my view, not a dead theory (battered perhaps).

If we want to establish a timeline for the production of the BoA and the KEP, it seems to me there ought to be a reasonable way to proceed. First, let's create a calendar of the whereabouts and activities of the principal players in our drama, then fit the extant documents by author/scribe to that calendar. Seems to me we have at that point a reasonable starting point.

Then and only then should what the actual texts actually say come into play.

Ashment ignores this most elementary of steps: chain of evidence.

[DonBradley]

And, yes, I have read the Ashment offerings on the subject.

USU,

I was also unconvinced when I read Ashment's arguments on this. What I later discovered, however, was that this was because I couldn't see just what he was saying till I sat down with a photocopy of the KEP and attempted to follow his arguments in the documents. When I could follow along, and see for myself, I found the arguments quite compelling.

I've also had the privilege of having Brent M. go through his KEP photos with me in some detail. This left no doubt about the relative ordering of the documents.

Because of my experience, I'd say to anyone that to understand the relevant arguments, it's very important to be able to follow along in the KEP for yourself. If you're very interested in the topic, I'd get a copy, and try to trace Ashment's and Brent's arguments for yourself, do the same with Gee's arguments, and examine the documents for yourself to the extent you can.

Good luck,

Don Bradley