The "missing Papyrus" Theory

[urroner]

Has the "missing papyrus" theory of the BofA been refuted? I have heard several critics of the Church state emphatically that it has. Did I miss something along the way?

[jwhitlock]

Do you mean the same critics that state emphatically that DNA evidence has proven the BofM to be false?

[William Schryver]

To my knowledge, no one has ever denied that there is only an extant fraction of the original volume of papyri purchased from Michael Chandler in 1835. There is evidence to support the argument that the scrolls were quite long when in the possession of Joseph Smith.

However, the critics attempt to avoid the issue of missing lengths of papyrus by focusing on the fact that the Book of Abraham manuscripts from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers have characters in the left hand column that are taken from the portion of the papyrus that has survived â?? the so-called Book of Breathings. Not only that, but they note that we do have the original of Facsimile #1, and the fact that the â??translationâ? provided by Joseph Smith does not conform to Egyptological convention â??provesâ? that he did not know how to translate Egyptian, therefore we can (presumably) conclude that he didnâ??t really â??translateâ? the Book of Abraham either, whether from the Book of Breathings or some other no-longer-extant piece of papyrus.

At any rate, this is why the debate tends to focus on the meaning of the KEPA manuscripts and whether or not Joseph Smith had a basis for rendering the meaning of the Facsimiles in the manner that he did.

[Obiwan]

Absolutely not.... Where you been Urroner?

It is in fact the "only" theory in which there is actual "evidence" for.

Some of Joseph's papyri ending up in some library is only evidence that he let go of the useless stuff.

And it having one "picture" (facsimile) on it again means nothing, because pictures are a dime a dozen.

[PacMan]

Brent Metcalfe (as well as others) have brought into question the history of Joseph F. Smith's testimony concerning seeing the scrolls rolled out on the floor of the Mansion House, as described by John Gee. Taking into account the diameters of the rooms, etc., some doubt exists concerning the validity of this testimony. It is important to note, however, that while Gee (and Metcalfe in his response) had represented the Mansion house in their analysis, the testimony specifically stated the Nauvoo House....another edifice altogether under construction for many, many years, and as I recall, never completely finished. As far as this "debunking" that has seemed most prolific of this testimony, let's be sure that is anything but. The only points that are qualified in Metcalfe's comments are the warnings of uncritical acceptance of the transmission history. Let us be sure that argumentum ad ignorantium, however, swings both ways.

PacMan

[noel00]

When I was young I was raised in a house which I thought was quite large, however when I returned many years later I was surprised to see how small it looked. Maybe the papyri was seen through different eyes when JFS was a young child. Baer (Dialogue 1968) tells us that the fibres of the two pieces of papyri (BOB & Fac 1) matched as well as that of the backing paper. The name Hor appears on both pieces. The english texts Ab 1 :18 talks about refering to the Fac at the beginning of the record. Don't these facts show that Smith thought or pretended the BOA was a translation of the BOB. If there was a longer piece in existence why did the scribes use the BOB symbols from that piece rather than the BOA papyri to do the "reverse engineering" exercise?

[urroner]

When I was young I was raised in a house which I thought was quite large, however when I returned many years later I was surprised to see how small it looked. Maybe the papyri was seen through different eyes when JFS was a young child. Baer (Dialogue 1968) tells us that the fibres of the two pieces of papyri (BOB & Fac 1) matched as well as that of the backing paper. The name Hor appears on both pieces. The english texts Ab 1 :18 talks about refering to the Fac at the beginning of the record. Don't these facts show that Smith thought or pretended the BOA was a translation of the BOB. If there was a longer piece in existence why did the scribes use the BOB symbols from that piece rather than the BOA papyri to do the "reverse engineering" exercise?

noel00, do these accusations refute the "missing papyrus" theory or do they just cast doubt onto it?

[noel00]

I believe these facts refute the "missing scroll" theory. These are:

1. The fibres and the backing paper of Fac 1 and the BOB match (Baer, Dialogue, 1968)

2. The name "Hor" appears on both pieces

3. The published account of the BOA tells the reader to refer to the Fac at the beginning of the papyri. This to my mind is refering to Fac 1.

4. The manuscript copies of the BOA have symbols taken from the BOB and juxtaposed against various verses of the BOA in english.

5. If as Gee argues the BOA was a longer piece using as evidence the childhood memory of JFS, the question is why did not the scribes use the symbols from that papyri rather than symbols from the BOB in their attempt at reverse engineering?

6. These facts I feel refute the "still missing theory" and show Smith pretended the BOA was contained in the BOB papyrus.

[Jerubaal]

5. If as Gee argues the BOA was a longer piece using as evidence the childhood memory of JFS, the question is why did not the scribes use the symbols from that papyri rather than symbols from the BOB in their attempt at reverse engineering?

Because Gee has argued that the longer papyri was the same roll that the BoB fragment comes from (i.e. there are other texts on the BoB roll). And there is another source that corroborates Joseph Fielding Smith's childhood recollection.

[noel00]

So you are arguing that the BOB was connected to some other piece that has no connection in content with the BOB? Thats a long stretch. I think it was Ritner whoe questioned Gee's ideas about the length of papyri in general. You wonder why some nonlds shake their heads in disbelief at some attempts apologists to save the BOA. So u r saying its just a co-incidence that the scribes used the wrong piece to do the reverse-engineering?.

[Olavarria]

So you are arguing that the BOB was connected to some other piece that has no connection in content with the BOB? Thats a long stretch. I think it was Ritner whoe questioned Gee's ideas about the length of papyri in general. You wonder why some nonlds shake their heads in disbelief at some attempts apologists to save the BOA. So u r saying its just a co-incidence that the scribes used the wrong piece to do the reverse-engineering?.

There are examples of Breathings texts that have unrelated material attached to them.

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

The fact is Joseph didnt know egyptian. When he translated the BoM and BoA he sis so thru divine revelation not scholarship. How was he suppossed to know what part of the papyri the BoA came from, if it came from the papyri at all.

[grego]

There are examples of Breathings texts that have unrelated material attached to them.

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

I don't care, I'm going to keep shaking my head anyway!

[Olavarria]

I don't care, I'm going to keep shaking my head anyway!

Because we know God is too holy to use anything "pagan" for scripture, or so Larson says.

[noel00]

Herr Amun, you would believe anything to get your prophet off the hook. So many theories proposed and the true explanation is in front of our noses.

[Jerubaal]

Herr Amun, you would believe anything to get your prophet off the hook. So many theories proposed and the true explanation is in front of our noses.

Oh, %^$%! I finally saw it! It's been there the whole time! Yup, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, etc., and anyone who doesn't toe the denunciation line is dishonest, stupid, or ignorant. Thank you for opening my eyes, sir.

[Olavarria]

Herr Amun, you would believe anything to get your prophet off the hook.

If I were to discount your arguments by saying: "Noel, you would believe anything to disparage the Prophet", i would sound pretty lame. OH!....thats right you haven't given me any arguments. So y dont you start a thread.

[Jerubaal]

Wow, noel00 has really opened my eyes now. I mean, how could I have been so blind? I mean, the answer was there the whole time, but I guess I just had Gee's mantra of "Magnitude! Undermine!" mesmerising me, keeping me from my common sense! Never mind that thousands of pages have been written on the issue, and most folks would consider it far from a closed debate! They just can't see what's right in front of them! The forest for the trees, and all that. Thank you for opening my eyes noel00! I couldn't have broken free from this delusion were it not for all the strong, well reasoned arguments you made and the powerful evidences you presented!

EDIT: Wow. I think noel00 finally triggered my bad side for the first time in a long time. Guess I'm just really ticked off right now. In the famous words of Bill Bixby (while he played David Banner): "Don't make me angry, Mr. McGee. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

[noel00]

If there was a knife there originally, are there any fibres in the glue? Its interesting the same V shape appears in the BOB but not in Fac 3 which would have been inside and not glued to the mummy. The characters from the BOB where the scribes were supposed to have attempt to "learn" the language were not legtimate characters in the Egyptian language where they are taken from the gap. See Baer's translation in Dialogue 1968. So I would argue that there was nothing there where Smith drew the knife.

You have not really answered the question, why would Smith and his scribes use characters from the BOB and not the still then extant BOA papyri? Answer, because the papyri never existed and is a creation of Gee's to save his prophet.

[Olavarria]

I wonder if Noel is reading Rhodes's paper that I linked?

[Jerubaal]

If there was a knife there originally, are there any fibres in the glue?

You mean the knife the priest is holding in Facsimile 1? We have journal accounts of people who saw the bald priest holding a knife knife prior to when the lacunae formed.

I wonder if Noel is reading Rhodes's paper that I linked?

Don't be silly. He can already assume that it is a bunch of scholarly doublespeak that is intended to placate the doubts of TBMs. He doesn't need to analyzie his logic or evidence to figure that out.

[Dale]

The missing papyrus idea is nice, but nothing exists to take it seriously. Papyrus may have been missing, but it's speculative to say it's content would support the Book of Abraham. If the content is similar to other papyrus content then it when translated would only contradict the Book of Abraham. On what basis would any among us other than faith gamble that a real missing Book of Abraham was found and lost again? Nothing in Egyptology exists to make such a gamble on.

[Olavarria]

You mean the knife the priest is holding in Facsimile 1? We have journal accounts of people who saw the bald priest holding a knife knife prior to when the lacunae formed.

Don't be silly. He can already assume that it is a bunch of scholarly doublespeak that is intended to placate the doubts of TBMs. He doesn't need to analyzie his logic or evidence to figure that out.

Silly me, I should have remembered the 1st rule of anti mormonism: use rhetoric, not facts.

[Jerubaal]

The missing papyrus idea is nice, but nothing exists to take it seriously. Papyrus may have been missing, but it's speculative to say it's content would support the Book of Abraham. If the content is similar to other papyrus content then it when translated would only contradict the Book of Abraham. On what basis would any among us other than faith gamble that a real missing Book of Abraham was found and lost again? Nothing in Egyptology exists to make such a gamble on.

The circled text identifies the figure on the couch as Abraham.

[Olavarria]

. On what basis would any among us other than faith gamble that a real missing Book of Abraham was found and lost again? Nothing in Egyptology exists to make such a gamble on.

Read Rhodes's article. I have for one have been re-converted to catalyst-ism by David Bokovoy.

[noel00]

It is argued that the knife was in the original fac 1. Some LDS say there are reports that some early witnesses saw the original Fac 1 with the bald head and knife as it is now. I question that for several reasons. You notice both V gaps in Fac 1 and the BOB in about the middle of each piece. When the symbols are used in the manuscript copy of the BOA, it has been noted that some that don't exist in the Egyptian language ( they have been made up). This suggests that the gap was there originally, so I am arguing that the gap was also in Fac 1 at the same time. Hence the attempts at drawing the knife and the head. I hope this is as clear as mud.