How Much Papyri Did Joseph Own? "lost Book Of Abraham"

[T-Shirt]

I just watched the movie "The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating an incredible mormon claim" . The video seems to insinuate that Joseph Smith only had one, relativly short roll of papyri. John Gee in "A guide to the Joseph Smith papyri " makes a case for alot more scrolls. Who is right?

This seems to be inconsistent with these statements:

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.

(Charles M. Larson, . . . by His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: a New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri ( John Gee), FARMS Review of Books, vol. 4 (1992), .)

In 1906 historian Preston Nibley accompanied President Joseph F. Smith, a nephew of the Prophet and the sixth president of the Church, on a visit to the Nauvoo House. Brother Nibley reported that President Smith "recalled with tears the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went."

(H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 156.)

T-Shirt

[Sethbag]

I just watched the movie "The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating an incredible mormon claim" . The video seems to insinuate that Joseph Smith only had one, relativly short roll of papyri. John Gee in "A guide to the Joseph Smith papyri " makes a case for alot more scrolls. Who is right?

Obviously the antis want there to be a little as possible so they can claim that the existing papyri is the stuff Joseph made the translations from. If there is a lot of stuff missing, it dilutes their arguement.

Obviously the pro-LDS want there to be as much as possible so they can claim that, whatever is on the papyri we have, they can just claim that the Book of Abraham was simply on the papyri we don't have.

Personally, I think it's pretty well demonstrated that the papyri we have were the source of the BoA. Sure, there are arguments against it, but I feel they are all a stretch, and unlikely to reflect the true situation. And, in the end, I think the facsimiles are a real last nail in the coffin.

As far as how much papyrus Joseph Smith owned, I don't know. I do believe that whatever papyrus Joseph owned that we no longer have, isn't important to the BoA, because I'm convinced the BoA papyri are among those we do have.

T-shirt, you do realize you're trying to rely on the vague description given by a person around 60 years after the incident in question, which he experienced originally as but a few years old child? If you want a perfect example of Why Me's "not conclusive" proof, this is it.

[William Schryver]

Sethbag:

Personally, I think it's pretty well demonstrated that the papyri we have were the source of the BoA.

Is it? How so? Please elaborate.

Sure, there are arguments against it, but I feel they are all a stretch, and unlikely to reflect the true situation.

A â??stretchâ?? You mean to call a â??stretchâ? the seemingly incontrovertible evidence that Ms. #2, at the very least, is a visual copy of an older document? How does the obvious presence of multiple dittographs in these manuscripts (not to mention the other evidence for copying) not â??reflect the true situationâ??

And, in the end, I think the facsimiles are a real last nail in the coffin.

How so? Please elaborate.

â?¦ because I'm convinced the BoA papyri are among those we do have.

What convinces you?

[Who Knows]

If you believe that I have mis-characterized his theory, I would invite you to restate it for us.

I am fairly confident that I understand his argument, but I am willing to be corrected.

Sure. Here's what he wrote in his initial (substantial) Pundit post: "To simplify without oversimplifying, I'm persuaded that rigorous scrutiny of the BoAbr manuscripts (resencio) yields a lucid, high-level stemma: 1) the bulk of ms. 1a (fldr. 2) and all of ms. 1b (fldr. 3) are simultaneous transcriptions from oral dictation; 2) ms. 2 (fldr. 1) is a textual hybrid that involves repurposing content from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, copying (and emending) ms. 1b, and transcribing newly dictated narrative; 3) ms. 3 is also a hybrid that involves copying (and emending) ms. 2, and transcribing newly dictated material (with the possibility of copying from a no-longer-extant manuscript). I'm well aware that some variants don't strictly fall within this transmission history, but they are tangential."

And Brent is the one who has admitted that Ms. #1 is a copy, so I don't know why I would have engaged in any "chest thumping" about it.

This is what I was referring to. In your pundit thread (began well after the Brian & Brent pundit thread) you wrote to Dan Vogel: "As you {Dan Vogel} are presumably serving as Brentâ??s proxy in this particular debate, I must assume that by ignoring my first point regarding Ms. #1, that he {Brent} is thereby tacitly acknowledging that he has retreated from the position that it is the product of an oral dictation, and is in fact a later copy, as argued by Dr. Hauglid and myself."

There are at least 2 other instances of you calling for Brent's clarification as well as intimating how he may have changed his mind based on your's and Brian's research. Which is completely off base given his initial pundit post above (which he made a month before your calls for clarification and him changing his mind), and which clearly explains his views on mss1.

Are you sure you understand the issues here?

I know enough to stand by what I initally wrote - that what you've posted doesn't conflict with Brent's theory.

[Brackite]

Hi William Schryver,

Pretty Simple Question: Do you really believe that Joseph Smith actually had an Papyrus Scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Abraham and if that papyrus scroll was available today, and about any regular Egyptian translated that papyrus Scroll, then the translation would come out very similar to what is contained in the Book of Abraham?

[thesometimesaint]

Brackite:

No I don't believe that would be possible. Just look at the arguments that still occur over the meaning of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.

[William Schryver]

Who Knows:

I know enough to stand by what I initally wrote - that what you've posted doesn't conflict with Brent's theory.

Your problem is that you don't appreciate the fact that I am not following Metcalfe's naming conventions for the manuscripts.

Here is a cross-reference:

Metcalfe: 1a Nibley: #2

Metcalfe: 1b Nibley: #3

Metcalfe: 2 Nibley: #1

Metcalfe: 3 Nibley: #4

That should help you to understand what you mistakenly feel has been my mischaracterization of Metcalfe's arguments. In fact, I have described them correctly.

Hi William Schryver,

Pretty Simple Question: Do you really believe that Joseph Smith actually had an Papyrus Scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Abraham and if that papyrus scroll was available today, and about any regular Egyptian translated that papyrus Scroll, then the translation would come out very similar to what is contained in the Book of Abraham?

Unless he was a bald-faced liar, then Joseph Smith certainly believed that he possessed a scroll that contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph. And unless the Book of Breathings characters served as some kind of an elaborate Mnemonic Device to record the Book of Abraham text, then we must assume that there was an actual Egyptian text that, were it extant today, would be seen to be a Ptolemaic-era version of an ancient Abrahamic text.

I hope that answers your question.

[Who Knows]

Your problem is that you don't appreciate the fact that I am not following Metcalfe's naming conventions for the manuscripts.

Here is a cross-reference:

Metcalfe: 1a Nibley: #2

Metcalfe: 1b Nibley: #3

Metcalfe: 2 Nibley: #1

Metcalfe: 3 Nibley: #4

That should help you to understand what you mistakenly feel has been my mischaracterization of Metcalfe's arguments. In fact, I have described them correctly.

Will, I'm not sure if you're purposefully being difficult here, or whether you're just not taking the time to actually read what I'm writing before replying.

I initially wrote that you're evidence of a portion of mss2 (brent's 1a) being copied, did not conflict with Brent's theory.

You told me that I didn't understand his theory.

I quoted his theory, which states that the bulk of mss2 (his 1a) was a dictation. The bulk. Not all. Most of it, etc. Do you get it now?

I then pointed you to the fact that (contrary to your wishes) Brent did not change his theory regarding mss1 (brent's mss2) as a result of yours and brians research. And in fact Brent had stated his opinions regarding this mss a month before your pundit post.

There is no mix-up of naming conventions. And in fact, you have not described Brent's theories correctly.

PLEASE - re-read Brent's initial pundit posts - and you should figure it out.

[Dale]

William-The Book of Breathings that get decipherd in the Kirtland papers is ideas right out of the Book of Abraham. Without the content of the Book of Abraham the characters would never have gotten proposed meanings.

[Olavarria]

bump

bump

bump

bump

[PacMan]

Brackite,

I'm not going to speak for Will, but let's be sure that mystery still prevails on a number of facets that would deter any type of firm conclusion regarding the origins of the BoA by either side...well, anyone that's objective. I of course have my opinions, but my opinions of the origin are terribly unfounded. I am sure in what I believe to be concrete evidence to correct erroneous perpetuations, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else necessarily can produced a better, more detailed history.

Personally, I think it's pretty well demonstrated that the papyri we have were the source of the BoA.

But let us be sure that such nonsense like this is quickly losing legs to stand on. Such a "demonstration" are typically based on superficial and uncritical reasoning that don't only contradict stated testimonies, etc., but also flys in the face of historical fact and common reason. Unfortunately, the only critical claim that seems to surface is one of guilt by association...and we'll see how long that hold out.

Not long, I imagine.

PacMan

[William Schryver]

WK:

I know enough to stand by what I initally wrote - that what you've posted doesn't conflict with Brent's theory.

I understand perfectly well that Metcalfe is going to try to argue that the dittograph represents some kind of copy; that the oral dictation part ended where the first instance of the paragraph ended.

But the argument has no legs. Why? Because the text continues after the point where the dittograph ends. Indeed, page 4 ends in mid-sentence, and there were apparently one or more pages in the Williams manuscript that we no longer possess.

Iâ??m sure Metcalfe is going to conconct some radically speculative theory for why Williams has come back to this document and then added in all this additional text. Remember, this is the same crowd that has given us the theories of group hallucination and tin plates in the past. I wouldnâ??t expect anything less fantastic from them in the future.

The problem is that the evidence in the document is not all that ambiguous. Even someone with only a knowledge of â??the rudiments of textual criticismâ? can see it.

But what I think is simply hilarious is that you guys initially acknowledged it for what it is, but then as soon as Metcalfe comes up with nothing more than a dismissive â??unbridled nonsenseâ? and a promise to explain it in a "forthcoming publication", youâ??re all back on the bandwagon.

Despite the fact that he hasnâ??t even attempted to explain anything yet!

But you guys have been willing to let Metcalfe and Vogel do your thinking for you for a long, long time now. I donâ??t expect that to change anytime soon.

[Who Knows]

I understand perfectly well that Metcalfe is going to try to argue that the dittograph represents some kind of copy; that the oral dictation part ended where the first instance of the paragraph ended.

You have no idea what he's going to argue. In fact, before yesterday, you didn't even know that his theory was that not all of mss2 was a dictation mss.

But the argument has no legs. Why? Because the text continues after the point where the dittograph ends. Indeed, page 4 ends in mid-sentence, and there were apparently one or more pages in the Williams manuscript that we no longer possess.

That's very nice of you to set up Brent's argument for him, and then 'defeat' it. Good job.

Iâ??m sure Metcalfe is going to conconct some radically speculative theory for why Williams has come back to this document and then added in all this additional text. Remember, this is the same crowd that has given us the theories of group hallucination and tin plates in the past. I wouldnâ??t expect anything less fantastic from them in the future.

Again, you don't know what he's going to argue. Guessing is just pointless.

And what's so silly about group hallucinations and tin plates? We could talk about God and Jesus and Angels with swords appearing to JS, but we don't really want to go there, do we?

The problem is that the evidence in the document is not all that ambiguous. Even someone with only a knowledge of â??the rudiments of textual criticismâ? can see it.

It's very ambiguous. I'm no expert in dittographs, so this is my own personal view. The only way your 'dittograph' works in this situation is if Williams took a break before beginning to copy again. For the life of me, I can't see how someone would only look at one word (Haran in this case) to figure out where they left off before beginning again. I just can't see how Williams would not read his last sentence "Therefore he continued in Haran" to figure out where he left off. Especially knowing that he had written the word Haran a number of times beforehand. You'd think he would be extra careful in figuring out where he had previously left off.

I find it equally unlikely that he would make such a huge error if he was continuously copying - how could his eye skip up 10/15 lines (if he was continuously copying - without taking a break as i noted above)?

Additionally, there are a number of other problems - Dan pointed out a couple of those. I noticed a difference in the punctuation between the 2 as well.

The most likely scenario in my mind is that he orignally wrote the paragraph (by dictation), and then for some unknown reason, decided to copy it. Maybe to make some changes (as noted by Dan, as well as punctuation as i noted above).

Either way, it's very ambiguous. What I think we can all agree on is that the 2nd instance of the paragraph is definitely a copy.

But what I think is simply hilarious is that you guys initially acknowledged it for what it is, but then as soon as Metcalfe comes up with nothing more than a dismissive â??unbridled nonsenseâ? and a promise to explain it in a "forthcoming publication", youâ??re all back on the bandwagon.

I acknowledged no such thing. I PM'd you thanking you for pointing out this section of the mss that has never been brought out before. And I think I said something along the lines of 'that section appears to be a copy, but I'm reserving judgement on the rest for now'.

To be honest, I didn't realize Brent's theory allowed for this sort of thing within mss2. Once that was pointed out, I was simply trying to clarify it for you - since apparently you had missed that as well.

Despite the fact that he hasnâ??t even attempted to explain anything yet!

So what? You expect him to explain everything to you as you demand it? He's been working on a publication for years. Why on earth should he feel like he has to answer to your every demand, every piece of evidence? Especially knowing full well that he will address these things in his long awaited publication.

But you guys have been willing to let Metcalfe and Vogel do your thinking for you for a long, long time now. I donâ??t expect that to change anytime soon.

No one's been doing the thinking for me. I've just been willing to let more informed people explain their views. And based on what I read, I've formed my own opinions. You're just upset that not everyone agrees with you. I've read your contributions, and appreciated much of them. Likewise, I await Brent's full theory as well.

Until that time, I reserve the right to wait it out, and see who comes up with the better arguments. Much to your dismay, I feel that Brent has the better theory right now. Get over it Will, not everyone's going to agree with you.

[Sethbag]

Hi William Schryver,

Pretty Simple Question: Do you really believe that Joseph Smith actually had an Papyrus Scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Abraham and if that papyrus scroll was available today, and about any regular Egyptian translated that papyrus Scroll, then the translation would come out very similar to what is contained in the Book of Abraham?

Unless he was a bald-faced liar, then Joseph Smith certainly believed that he possessed a scroll that contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph. And unless the Book of Breathings characters served as some kind of an elaborate Mnemonic Device to record the Book of Abraham text, then we must assume that there was an actual Egyptian text that, were it extant today, would be seen to be a Ptolemaic-era version of an ancient Abrahamic text.

And if he were a bald-faced liar? How then would things look? I don't have to hand-wave and make up a lot of crap in describing how things would look if that were the case - they'd look about as they look right now. We'd end up with a bunch of papyrus with characters that translate out to something other than the writings of Abraham, and the facsimiles that Joseph Smith "translated" and interpreted would be seen to mean something else by modern egyptologists.

And you don't seem to have been very happy about my reference to the pro-BoA arguments being a "stretch". The very fact that you referenced the mnemonic theory provides exactly one kind of example of this. The mnemonic theory is such a stretch it's not even funny. Stripped of all the hand-waving and pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, it's basically saying "this text didn't say what we hoped it would say, so we think that this text actually represents some kind of secret code by which the text we're looking for is referenced, and Joseph Smith had the secret decoder ring from God and could understand the references and write down the original text from it. Of course we don't understand the code; we don't have the secret decoder ring."

[why me]

"Courtesy of the late Paul O. http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id545.htm"

The LATE Paul O? Has he died?

Paul O left the boards. Perhaps you can read his farewell by finding his last post.

[William Schryver]

Hi William Schryver,

Pretty Simple Question: Do you really believe that Joseph Smith actually had an Papyrus Scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Abraham and if that papyrus scroll was available today, and about any regular Egyptian translated that papyrus Scroll, then the translation would come out very similar to what is contained in the Book of Abraham?

Unless he was a bald-faced liar, then Joseph Smith certainly believed that he possessed a scroll that contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph. And unless the Book of Breathings characters served as some kind of an elaborate Mnemonic Device to record the Book of Abraham text, then we must assume that there was an actual Egyptian text that, were it extant today, would be seen to be a Ptolemaic-era version of an ancient Abrahamic text.

And if he were a bald-faced liar? How then would things look? I don't have to hand-wave and make up a lot of crap in describing how things would look if that were the case - they'd look about as they look right now. We'd end up with a bunch of papyrus with characters that translate out to something other than the writings of Abraham, and the facsimiles that Joseph Smith "translated" and interpreted would be seen to mean something else by modern egyptologists.

And you don't seem to have been very happy about my reference to the pro-BoA arguments being a "stretch". The very fact that you referenced the mnemonic theory provides exactly one kind of example of this. The mnemonic theory is such a stretch it's not even funny. Stripped of all the hand-waving and pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, it's basically saying "this text didn't say what we hoped it would say, so we think that this text actually represents some kind of secret code by which the text we're looking for is referenced, and Joseph Smith had the secret decoder ring from God and could understand the references and write down the original text from it. Of course we don't understand the code; we don't have the secret decoder ring."

Just for the record, I personally do not subscribe to the mnemonic device theory. You, of course, are free to subscribe to any theory you find agreeable to your predilections.

[William Schryver]

WK:

You have no idea what he's going to argue. In fact, before yesterday, you didn't even know that his theory was that not all of mss2 was a dictation mss.

Are you sure?

And what's so silly about group hallucinations and tin plates? We could talk about God and Jesus and Angels with swords appearing to JS, but we don't really want to go there, do we?

I believe you are free to “go” wherever you’d like.

The only way your 'dittograph' works in this situation is if Williams took a break before beginning to copy again.

Yes. That is precisely what I said in my original post on this topic in the Pundits forum.

For the life of me, I can't see how someone would only look at one word (Haran in this case) to figure out where they left off before beginning again. I just can't see how Williams would not read his last sentence "Therefore he continued in Haran" to figure out where he left off.

As I already noted, and as the photo shows plainly: because it was the only word on the line.

Especially knowing that he had written the word Haran a number of times beforehand. You'd think he would be extra careful in figuring out where he had previously left off.

You’d think, wouldn’t you? I suppose that’s why a dittograph is considered a copying error.

Additionally, there are a number of other problems - Dan pointed out a couple of those.

Those weren’t problems, they were meaningless quibbles designed to distract from the larger issue. I’ve addressed them in the other thread if you’re interested.

I noticed a difference in the punctuation between the 2 as well.

That’s to be expected, in any event. The exemplar (if it was consistent with Joseph Smith’s other translation manuscripts) probably didn’t have any punctuation. Williams was simply adding some as he made his copy.

The most likely scenario in my mind is that he orignally wrote the paragraph (by dictation), and then for some unknown reason, decided to copy it. Maybe to make some changes (as noted by Dan, as well as punctuation as i noted above).

I don’t think that makes for a very plausible explanation. But you’re certainly free to believe it if it suits you. I think I’ll apply Ocham’s razor to this particular problem, if you don’t mind.

You're just upset that not everyone agrees with you. I've read your contributions, and appreciated much of them. Likewise, I await Brent's full theory as well.

Until that time, I reserve the right to wait it out, and see who comes up with the better arguments. Much to your dismay, I feel that Brent has the better theory right now. Get over it Will, not everyone's going to agree with you.

I’ve made it perfectly clear all along that I’m more than willing to let the readers be the judge. Apparently you’re siding with the critics of the church at this juncture. That’s no big surprise.

[Who Knows]

Those werenâ??t problems, they were meaningless quibbles designed to distract from the larger issue. Iâ??ve addressed them in the other thread if youâ??re interested.

Who says they were meaningless? There's a couple other errors I found. In the 2nd paragraph, Williams omits the word 'me' in the first sentence. Then, later on, in this sentence "and also my father followed after me" he omitted the word 'after'.

Thatâ??s to be expected, in any event. The exemplar (if it was consistent with Joseph Smithâ??s other translation manuscripts) probably didnâ??t have any punctuation. Williams was simply adding some as he made his copy.

But that's not the case. In the first paragraph, Williams has all sorts of punctuation - commas, colons, semicolons. It appears that in the 2nd paragraph, he didn't include most (if not all) of those.

Also, you can see that in the first paragraph, Williams is just writing 'freely' without worrying about space, length, etc. Then, as he's making his copy of the paragraph, he realizes how much room he's going to need, and decides to squish the words together, as well as the ignore the margin (also probably because he knows he's not going to need another egyptian character as well).

I donâ??t think that makes for a very plausible explanation. But youâ??re certainly free to believe it if it suits you. I think Iâ??ll apply Ochamâ??s razor to this particular problem, if you donâ??t mind.

Occam's razor? You really think you have the simplest explanation? Really? You can't even come up with a theory that accounts for all of the evidence - you have to rely on a couple of different scenarios to explain the various differences. Brent relies on one single theory that accounts for all of the evidence.

So, what does occam's razor really say?

Iâ??ve made it perfectly clear all along that Iâ??m more than willing to let the readers be the judge. Apparently youâ??re siding with the critics of the church at this juncture. Thatâ??s no big surprise.

Apparently, not too many of the readers are following the debate. But anyhow, yes, I'm siding with the critics for now - BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE BEST THEORY!

Like you said - 'that's no big surprise' - that's usually what people do.

[William Schryver]

WK:

Apparently, not too many of the readers are following the debate.

Really? The thread in the Pundits forum, despite having been idle for the previous three weeks, has had over 1200 views. That sounds like a few people checking in.

But, onto your other points:

Who says they were meaningless? There's a couple other errors I found. In the 2nd paragraph, Williams omits the word 'me' in the first sentence. Then, later on, in this sentence "and also my father followed after me" he omitted the word 'after'.

The “me” is actually inserted (incorrectly) after Abram in the second paragraph. You are absolutely correct that “after” is missing in the second paragraph. This is a case of haplography, which is also a visual copying error. Williams also uses the apparent abbreviation “bro” in place of “brother’s” in the second paragraph.

In addition, the first paragraph reads: “… get the out of thy country, …”

Whereas the second reads: “… get thee out of thy country …”

My claim that they are insignificant and insubstantial is meant to be viewed within the context of the question of whether or not this is a dittograph. These minor variants do not exert any negative influence on the legitimacy of the dittograph. They are simply copying errors. There are some in both paragraphs. That is no surprise. Scribes making visual copies make errors. That is my whole point.

But that's not the case. In the first paragraph, Williams has all sorts of punctuation - commas, colons, semicolons. It appears that in the 2nd paragraph, he didn't include most (if not all) of those.

The colons and semi-colons in the first paragraph give strong indications of being secondary emendations. At least two of the commas in the first paragraph appear to also be secondary emendations. (Looking at the real-color original as opposed to the grayscale image I have posted.) All of the punctuation in the second paragraph, except perhaps one comma, appears to be primary. The total number of articles of punctuation in the first paragraph: 13 – 7 secondary = 6 original. In the second paragraph: 7 – 1 secondary = 6 original.

Your argument is grossly overstated even if we were to include all of the secondary articles in the count. The issue of punctuation between the two paragraphs does nothing to dispute the legitimacy of the dittograph.

Also, you can see that in the first paragraph, Williams is just writing 'freely' without worrying about space, length, etc. Then, as he's making his copy of the paragraph, he realizes how much room he's going to need, and decides to squish the words together, as well as the ignore the margin …

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Why do you think he felt he lacked space? He clearly continued on to an additional page which we no longer have. This argument makes no sense.

Occam's razor? You really think you have the simplest explanation? Really? You can't even come up with a theory that accounts for all of the evidence - you have to rely on a couple of different scenarios to explain the various differences. Brent relies on one single theory that accounts for all of the evidence.

ROTFL.

His single theory accounts for all of the evidence?

I’m sure he thinks it does.

And I’m sure you think whatever you think he thinks. You guys are funny that way.

Well, we shall see.

He’s had a twenty year headstart on the rest of us, so I’m sure the self-proclaimed “Document Detective” has been able to weave together quite a web of classic Metcalfian sophistries. But he’s not the only one with a ball in this game anymore. Now there are others with at least a knowledge of “the rudiments of textual criticism.”

It remains to be seen how long the “Metcalfe Unified Theory” (hereafter “MUT”) will be able to stand.

[Who Knows]

Really? The thread in the Pundits forum, despite having been idle for the previous three weeks, has had over 1200 views. That sounds like a few people checking in.

What I wrote was based mostly on comments from others related to the KEP, that I've seen in this thread and others. But also, 1200 page views in 5 weeks? You do the math. I'm guessing fewer than 20 people are following it.

Anyhoo....

My claim that they are insignificant and insubstantial is meant to be viewed within the context of the question of whether or not this is a dittograph. These minor variants do not exert any negative influence on the legitimacy of the dittograph. They are simply copying errors. There are some in both paragraphs. That is no surprise. Scribes making visual copies make errors. That is my whole point.

I agree with you that there appears to be some copying errors in the 2nd paragraph.

The colons and semi-colons in the first paragraph give strong indications of being secondary emendations. At least two of the commas in the first paragraph appear to also be secondary emendations. (Looking at the real-color original as opposed to the grayscale image I have posted.) All of the punctuation in the second paragraph, except perhaps one comma, appears to be primary. The total number of articles of punctuation in the first paragraph: 13 â?? 7 secondary = 6 original. In the second paragraph: 7 â?? 1 secondary = 6 original.

Re-read what you just wrote above. Again, it appears to me that the 2nd paragraph is a copy of the first paragraph.

Your argument is grossly overstated even if we were to include all of the secondary articles in the count. The issue of punctuation between the two paragraphs does nothing to dispute the legitimacy of the dittograph.

Well, I think it does. But hey, I'm not an expert.

I have no idea what youâ??re talking about here. Why do you think he felt he lacked space? He clearly continued on to an additional page which we no longer have. This argument makes no sense.

It appears that Williams knew that he wanted to fit the entire paragraph on that page, and that to do so, he would have to write smaller, with smaller gaps between the words, and ignore the margin. It's obvious that he did those things. Do you have a better explanation as to why he did this?

My whole point was that when he originally wrote the paragraph, he appeared not to care about how much space he was taking up - as evidenced by the size of the text, space between the words, and the margins. This all changed when he started writing the paragraph for a second time. Did Williams do this anywhere else in his mss2? I don't believe so, and it's just very fishy that the only time he did this is when he was copying the paragraph for the second time (where he knew how much space it would take up).

I can't believe that doesn't raise any red flags for you, in regards to your dittograph theory. But oh well.

ROTFL.

Ok, I see, we're getting to that stage. Okaayyy...

His single theory accounts for all of the evidence?

Like I said, I haven't seen his explanation for this new piece of evidence you brought up. So I don't know how that fits into his overall theory.

But other than that, yes, his theory, as I've read it, accounts for all the evidence that's been presented.

Heâ??s had a twenty year headstart on the rest of us, so Iâ??m sure the self-proclaimed â??Document Detectiveâ? has been able to weave together quite a web of classic Metcalfian sophistries. But heâ??s not the only one with a ball in this game anymore. Now there are others with at least a knowledge of â??the rudiments of textual criticism.â?

It remains to be seen how long the â??Metcalfe Unified Theoryâ? (hereafter â??MUTâ?) will be able to stand.

What's a 'classic metcalfian sophistry'? And what's your point with what you just wrote? Oh yeah, more grandstanding and chest thumping. Will, Will, Will...

So when are you going to come up with your theory that accounts for all of the evidence? All you've done so far is present plausible alternatives to some of Brent's explanations. And those alternatives don't even always follow a single theory. But we're getting back to what Dan told you in your pundit thread. So I guess we don't need to go there again.

But I'm all ears...

[Dale]

I myself only read the Pundits Forum discussions from time to time. I tend to read more the thread's I can participate in. I am sure most others are the same. I just figure I can let a discussion develop & then go back and read through the Pundits Forum discussions. But I am not able to participate there so I don't keep up with it frequently. No way of knowing whether 20 people, or a a 120 people are reading the Pundit's Forum discussions. I dpubt I have looked through the discussions more than twice over five weeks. So either the other 19 are repeating a lot or we have more than twenty people reading the discussions.

A good way to keep better tabs on how many persons read the Pundit posts might be to take a visitors poll. Poll the persons who read the posts how many times they read the posts during a month, which ones interests them, and let them leave their member name. It would still keep the forum exlusive to favored participants outside of this special poll. No way to do the math without a poll of some type.

--------

To get back on topic. I think John Gee is right that more papyrus existed. That it possibly contained the lost Book of Abrham untranslated text is only speculation at this point. I think a greater chance exists that regular Egyptian text existed upon it. Though since it's missing, and probably destroyed in a fire it's a matter of faith to believers what was on it.

[Brackite]

I believe that about the only believable theory for the Book of Abraham is the Catalytic Theory for the Book of Abraham. Paul O. describes to the Catalystic Theory for the Book of Abraham. Here is the link to his Web Site Page: http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id3.htm

I do Not believe that Joseph Smith actually had any Papyrus Scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Abraham in Egyptian. I do also Not believe that the Papyrus Scroll was as long as John Gee stated that it was. Here is what R. Ritner wrote in response to John Gee:

There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to '320 cm (about 10 feet)' in Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12â??13. Gee presumably wishes to allow space for a supposedly 'lost hieratic text' of The Book of Abraham; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus rollâ??not comparable, individual documents cut from such a roll. [R. Ritner, "Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62.3 (July 2003): 166n33]

I think that probably the best evidence for the Book of Abraham is the Apocalypse of Abraham first published in 1897.

For Exapmle, Both the Book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham basically state that mankind lived before being born on earth.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just a quick couple of notes -

First it is pretty widely recognized that Joseph had at least six separate documents in his possession (or at least parts of six separate documents).

The other thing is that there are some additional arguments which can be made. You ought to look here Brackite for some comments on the length of the text -

http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/Th...okofAbraham.pdf

Gee's argument is highly speculative. When the papyri believed to have been destroyed in Chicago were housed in St. Louis, Seyffarth attempted to translate them. He couldn't really translate Egyptian, and his translations were wrong, but he made a number of them, and they were consistently wrong in the same ways. He recorded notes on the columns of text attached to the original of Facsimile 3 which he studied (and lectured about) in St. Louis. And, according to Gee, he appears to have translated the introduction to a new separate text attached to the Book of Breathings. This is part of the basis from which Gee claims that there was a second text attached to the Book of Breathings which may have been the source of the Book of Abraham. And the reason why the comments in the above linked document deal with multiple texts attached to a funerary document. (They still seem rather rare despite the several instances provided, so how "reasonable" it is might be best seen as a judment call).

All of this is, of course, very interesting and ultimately very seculative.

[Who Knows]

Ben. Thanks for the article, although glancing through it, it appears to use some outdated BOA arguments - like the 2 ink theory.

But anyhow, here's some things to think about for those 'missing papyri' theorists:

- Fac.1 is at the beginning of the BOB, as well as the beginning of the BOA.

- Fac.3 (though it doesn't exist today) is at the end of the BOA, and refers to the same story as told in the BOB. In other words, the text of the BOA is somewhere between Fac. 1 and Fac. 3, however, there's absolutely no justification for assuming any missing text between those, as the Facs. are 'bookends' to the same story (as noted by the translations of the Facs.)

- The text of the BOA refers to Fac.1 as being at the beginning of the record. And this text comes before Fac. 3.

- The characters next to the text in the KEP (whether put there by the scribes on their own, or at JS's direction) come directly from the BOB - IN ORDER no less. In the very least - JS's personal scribes for the translation of the BOA felt that the BOA came from the BOB.

- JS's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations. Thus, JS's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional. I'm assuming the way he translated the Facs. is similar to the way he translated the text of the BOA. In other words, if his translations of the Facs. were not traditional, why would anyone expect his translations of the BOA text to be different?

- Some of the Facs. were damaged prior to JS's purchase of them. JS 'restored' these facsimiles - using characters from the BOB.

- JS's translations as seen in the GAEL are clearly wrong. This should be some kind of indicator of the methods used to translate the text of the BOA. Also, the characters used in the GAEL come from the BOB.

Those are just some of the things that to me, indicate that the BOB is the source of the BOA. There is absolutely no evidence to assume the translation came from any missing records - other than the fact that the BOB is not the BOA.

But some will continue to believe what they want to believe...

[Benjamin McGuire]

Who Knows writes:

Fac.3 (though it doesn't exist today) is at the end of the BOA, and refers to the same story as told in the BOB. In other words, the text of the BOA is somewhere between Fac. 1 and Fac. 3, however, there's absolutely no justification for assuming any missing text between those, as the Facs. are 'bookends' to the same story (as noted by the translations of the Facs.)

And Facsimile 2, which is presented in the middle of the Book of Abraham comes from an entirely different piece of papyrus. So I am not sure that this is all that significant. An interesting and related question would also have to be whether or not there was intended to be more to the Book of Abraham than we have (i.e. was it complete). If there was, then the idea that Fac. 3 was at the end of the text (based entirely on its placement in the published versions) is quite likely coincidental as opposed to an intentional placement indicating ordering.

- The text of the BOA refers to Fac.1 as being at the beginning of the record. And this text comes before Fac. 3.

Yes, and according to Gee, the additional text would begin following the original of facsimile 3. In fact the text introducing the new material was adjacent to facsimile 3 in his suggestion which is where Seyffarth saw it and translated it. There is little doubt, however, based on Seyffarth's description of what he saw in St. Louis, that there was something that came after the original of facsimile 3. What it was exactly is open to speculation, since we only have it in translation (by Seyffarth) and we know that the translation is wrong. Gee is moving forward based on the idea that we can reverse engineer the Egyptian text based on Seyffarth's translation since he translated other still extent texts and translated other things using the same language he uses here. Personally, it would not surprise me to find that verse 14 was an insertion by Joseph Smith.

- The characters next to the text in the KEP (whether put there by the scribes on their own, or at JS's direction) come directly from the BOB - IN ORDER no less. In the very least - JS's personal scribes for the translation of the BOA felt that the BOA came from the BOB.

Yes this is true. And where there are holes in the papyrus we have invented characters to fill the gaps.

- JS's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations. Thus, JS's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional. I'm assuming the way he translated the Facs. is similar to the way he translated the text of the BOA. In other words, if his translations of the Facs. were not traditional, why would anyone expect his translations of the BOA text to be different?

I don't think that anyone argues that his translation process wasn't unconventional.

- Some of the Facs. were damaged prior to JS's purchase of them. JS 'restored' these facsimiles - using characters from the BOB.

Yes. But a secondary issue that you may not be aware of, is that some of the fragments we still have also had holes in them, and the papyrus was repaired by taking fragments from the BoB and inserting them into the holes. Hardly a thing we would expect the prophet to do with the text of the Book of Abraham.

- JS's translations as seen in the GAEL are clearly wrong. This should be some kind of indicator of the methods used to translate the text of the BOA. Also, the characters used in the GAEL come from the BOB.

Yes, but the GAEL contains none of the Book of Abraham. Which tells us what?

Those are just some of the things that to me, indicate that the BOB is the source of the BOA. There is absolutely no evidence to assume the translation came from any missing records - other than the fact that the BOB is not the BOA.

To be frank, you have a very simplistic view of the whole thing. Mind you it probably works for you, so keep it. As you said, you will probably continue to believe what you want to believe.

Ben