The "missing Papyrus" Theory

[Mighty Curelom]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so if this has been addressed, just ignore it.

The missing papyrus theory might have been tenable if it weren't for one thing: within the Book of Abraham narrative, Abraham refers the reader to an illustration at the beginning of his story.

"And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record."

We have that representation, and we have the text connected to that representation. And that text is not Abraham's story. Case closed.

[Jerubaal]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so if this has been addressed, just ignore it.

The missing papyrus theory might have been tenable if it weren't for one thing: within the Book of Abraham narrative, Abraham refers the reader to an illustration at the beginning of his story.

We have that representation, and we have the text connected to that representation. And that text is not Abraham's story. Case closed.

Whoops! Amazing that this has slipped over the heads of every single apologist in history! Yep, case definitively closed. Thank you for opening my eyes, MC.

*sigh*

[John Williams]

It's not your responsibility to point that out. We graciously gave you another chance on this board and we expect good behavior from you.

To all:

I've said this before. The moderators don't see every post of every thread. Send a report if you think a rule has been violated. I have noticed a lot of whining from certain posters who rarely call anything to our attention.

Skylla

Again, sorry for the snarkiness.

[cdowis]

And that text is not Abraham's story.

You are mistaken.

[William Schryver]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so if this has been addressed, just ignore it.

The missing papyrus theory might have been tenable if it weren't for one thing: within the Book of Abraham narrative, Abraham refers the reader to an illustration at the beginning of his story.

We have that representation, and we have the text connected to that representation. And that text is not Abraham's story. Case closed.

Your observations might have some credence if it were not for the unusual qualities of the manuscripts at precisely this verse.

Frederick G. Williamsâ?? Ms. #2 (which is a copy of an earlier document) shows that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? was inserted between lines as a secondary emendation.

Warren Parrishâ??s Ms. #3 (which is also a copy of an earlier document) originally read â??I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â? â??That is lying before youâ? was then crossed out, and the words â??at the commencement of this recordâ? were added.

It is apparent from the nature of these emendations that there was initially some confusion about how to refer to the illustration now known as Facsimile #1. It clearly did not have the same relationship to the original text of the Book of Abraham that it appears to have in our printed copies in the PoGP. One of the theories being advanced by the current textual analysis is that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? is a modern addition (presumably by Joseph Smith) and that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham appeared on the same scroll as the illustration (Facsimile #1), but was not immediately adjacent to it.

[Olavarria]

Your observations might have some credence if it were not for the unusual qualities of the manuscripts at precisely this verse.

Frederick G. Williamsâ?? Ms. #2 (which is a copy of an earlier document) shows that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? was inserted between lines as a secondary emendation.

Warren Parrishâ??s Ms. #3 (which is also a copy of an earlier document) originally read â??I will refer you to the representation that is lying before you.â? â??That is lying before youâ? was then crossed out, and the words â??at the commencement of this recordâ? were added.

It is apparent from the nature of these emendations that there was initially some confusion about how to refer to the illustration now known as Facsimile #1. It clearly did not have the same relationship to the original text of the Book of Abraham that it appears to have in our printed copies in the PoGP. One of the theories being advanced by the current textual analysis is that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? is a modern addition (presumably by Joseph Smith) and that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham appeared on the same scroll as the illustration (Facsimile #1), but was not immediately adjacent to it.

CK, Bokovoy, and Schryver remind me how ignorant I am about the BoA.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will,

One of the theories being advanced by the current textual analysis is that the phrase â??I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this recordâ? is a modern addition (presumably by Joseph Smith) and that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham appeared on the same scroll as the illustration (Facsimile #1), but was not immediately adjacent to it.

It's worth noting that a few verses later we find the same idea expressed again:

"That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."

Kevin Barney has also proposed a couple possible explanations for these verses. The second explanation is similar to what you mentioned above.

Contra Hoskisson, as I

have expressed above, I believe it likely that the Book of Abraham did

undergo a textual transmission in antiquity. As a concrete example, I

would read the back references to Facsimile 1 at Abraham 1:12b and 14 as

glosses that would have been added to the text only at the time it was first

appended to a scroll containing a Book of Breathings, if in fact that is what

happened.61 Thompson is unwilling to allow this possibility, because in his

view the pronoun "I" in verse 12 ("I will refer you to the representation at

the commencement of the record") must have been written by Abraham.62

This insistence on Thompson's part is naive at best; certainly anyone

familiar with critical scholarship regarding biblical redaction would not

doubt the willingness of a scribe to make such a clarification in words as if

from the perspective of an ancient prophet. Deleting these back references

not only would do no harm to the flow and sense of the text, it would

actually improve them.

...

61. John Gee argues, based on Gustavus Seyffarth's description of the

roll containing the original of Facsimile 3 as it existed in 1856 while it was

at the St. Louis Museum, that there may have been another text on the roll

following the Book of Breathings ("Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical

Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," in The Disciple as Witness: Essays

on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd

Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges

[Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000], 189). If this argument is correct, and if this

additional text was the Book of Abraham, my theory would explain why Jred

appended that book to a Book of Breathings (because he meant to

adopt the vignettes to the Book of Breathings as illustrations for the Book

of Abraham). On this reading, the back references to "the commencement

of this record" and to "the beginning" were added to point the reader to the

beginning of the scroll, not the book. This would also explain why some of

the Kirtland Egyptian Papers show attempts to match characters from the

Book of Breathings to the finished English text of the Book of Abraham;

those involved in the exercise would have wrongly assumed that the Book

of Abraham was the first text on the papyrus scroll, whereas in reality it

would have been the second.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=168

These strike me as just being attempts to avoid the obvious implications of these two verses. I have already discussed the problems with using the Seyffarth statement to bolster such a hypothesis. In fact, I think Seyffarth's statement tends to exclude this as even being a possibility. But perhaps more important is the fact that Abr. 1:12b and 1:14 point in very much the same direction as a large body of other evidence. If I may cite my fellow critic Who Knows:

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.

-CK

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

It's worth noting that a few verses later we find the same idea expressed again:

"That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."

Kevin Barney has also proposed a couple possible explanations for these verses. The second explanation is similar to what you mentioned above.

These strike me as just being attempts to avoid the obvious implications of these two verses. I have already discussed the problems with using the Seyffarth statement to bolster such a hypothesis. In fact, I think Seyffarth's statement tends to exclude this as even being a possibility. But perhaps more important is the fact that Abr. 1:12b and 1:14 point in very much the same direction as a large body of other evidence. If I may cite my fellow critic Who Knows:

-CK

None of your reply addresses the reason why there was obviously some uncertainty/confusion/second-thoughts about how to make reference to the illustration. The earlier Williams manuscript initially omitted any specific reference to its location -- it was clearly added in as an afterthought. The Parrish manuscript was changed from "that is lying before you" to match the language of the Williams manuscript ("at the commencement of this record.") Clearly, there was some reason for which this was done.

The logical conclusion is that the relationship of the location of the text and the illustration was not such that they were adjacent to each other. If, as Gee suggests, Seyffarth did make reference to a text that followed the Sensen document, that would help to explain the emendations that we see in the manuscripts. In any case, we are left with the obvious reality that this particular verse was subject to modifications for some reason, and since the verse is attempting to place the location of the illustration relative to the text, it is not unreasonable to suggest that their relationship was something other than what the critics would force upon us in their attempts to tie the BoA text to the BoB.

[Chris Smith]

None of your reply addresses the reason why there was obviously some uncertainty/confusion/second-thoughts about how to make reference to the illustration. The earlier Williams manuscript initially omitted any specific reference to its location -- it was clearly added in as an afterthought. The Parrish manuscript was changed from "that is lying before you" to match the language of the Williams manuscript ("at the commencement of this record.") Clearly, there was some reason for which this was done.

Hi Will,

As I recall, you think both Parrish and Williams were copying from a "manuscript Q". So if I understand you correctly, your theory is that MS Q said either "that is lying before you" or nothing at all. If we give the Williams emendation priority (as you suggested above), this leaves us two options:

1) If MS Q said "that is lying before you," then Parrish followed Q, but Williams ommitted the phrase. Williams inserts "that is at the commencement of this record" sort of interlinearly. Parrish then modifies his manuscript to match Williams.

2) If MS Q had no identifying phrase, then Williams followed manuscript Q, whereas Parrish added a phrase to try to identify the illustration. Williams inserts "at the commencement of this record" interlinearly, then Parrish modifies his manuscript to match Williams.

I think the first option is more likely, since it only requires that one scribe intentionally deviated from the Q manuscript here (then the other reacted to this change). The latter theory requires that each scribe deviated from the original in a different way, then one adopted the other's emendation.

Is this an accurate statement of your argument? I am curious why you give priority to the Williams emendation. Why couldn't Parrish have made the change during copying, and then Williams changed his manuscript to match? (Not that it matters much for the present discussion; I'm just curious.)

As for my own explanation of this particular emendation, I find myself strongly sympathizing with Metcalfe here. As I'm sure you recall, Metcalfe believes that the confusion was caused because Joseph Smith-- who was dictating to his two scribes-- changed his mind in mid-sentence. He had originally dictated "that is lying before you" and then changed to "at the commencement of this record." This seems plausible to me. It also is not clear to me that Williams' "at the commencement of this record" was strictly an afterthought. The line begins to stray upward as early as "I will refer you to the illustration," without which the sentence would be incomplete. "That is at the" continues to stray upwards, and "commencement of this record" is written in the interlinear space created thereby. The next line is a new Egyptian character and starts a new paragraph. Williams' manuscript is sloppy enough that he may just have been trying to conserve space. In any case, I'm not going to make a decision on this locus or accept it as hard evidence of anything until I see Hauglid's and Metcalfe's respective production theories laid out in full.

Who Knows does, however, deliver some poignant counterpunches to the missing papyrus theory. Even if verse 12b could be partially discredited due to manuscript variants, I think it's quite clear that at the very least Joseph and his scribes believed that the BoB was the source of the BoA. I'm also fairly certain that Seyffarth's statement, combined with some observations about books of breathings framed by vignettes like the present ones, will be sufficient for most readers to discard the notion that a text about Abraham came between the BoB and Facsimile 3 on this roll.

-CK

[Chaos]

Please see: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=25069

[John Williams]

Please see: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=25069

I'm puzzled as to why it's necessary to read Egyptian to discuss the BofAbraham. AFAIK, nobody disputes what the Egyptian text actually says, do they? I don't read Egyptian, so maybe my bluff has been called, but then I don't claim any expertise in these matters.

[noel00]

I'd like to present the question once more. LDS apologists argue that the presence of the symbols juxtaposed with the words on Abraham in the manuscripts are in their opinion efforts by the scribes to work out the process. Why did they use symbols from the BOB rather than the "now missing" but most likly 'not missing" then to learn the process? Hope my question is as clear as mud.

[William Schryver]

I'd like to present the question once more. LDS apologists argue that the presence of the symbols juxtaposed with the words on Abraham in the manuscripts are in their opinion efforts by the scribes to work out the process. Why did they use symbols from the BOB rather than the "now missing" but most likly 'not missing" then to learn the process? Hope my question is as clear as mud.

Assuming that this "reverse engineering" project is what the scribes were doing, it would seem that the logical explanation for them using characters from the BoB is that they assumed (perhaps mistakenly) it to be the source of the English text. However, there is no reason to suppose that they did, in fact, know which Egyptian text was the source of the "translation."

As I have noted before on this board, since Joseph Smith did not use the "original" text in any of his previous translations, there is no reason to suppose that he did so in this case, either. Joseph Smith could not have pointed to a specific plate and indicated that it was the source of, let's say 3rd Nephi -- because he wasn't referencing the plates. He didn't have source material for the Book of Moses. He didn't have source material for D&C 7.

I'm not sure it's a logical assumption that Joseph Smith even knew what Egyptian text was the source of the Book of Abraham, based solely on his previous "translation" projects. Joseph Smith was not a true "translator" of ancient languages. Even for those who regard him as a prophet, he wasn't a conventional "translator." He was simply a medium through which translations were revealed.

[noel00]

So with all the papyri in front of him he did not have a clue which was the BOA?

[Olavarria]

So with all the papyri in front of him he did not have a clue which was the BOA?

Why would he, he couldnt read egyptian. That is why he translated the BoM(during the Cowdery days) like this:

Joseph SMith translated by the power of God, not scholarhsip. It was God and Joseph working together, though God did most the work.

[captain-jack]

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.

Well dang, here I was thinking that Joseph was being led by God and it is possible that he was instructed not to. You know, to keep up the whole "faith" think. I mean, how easy would it be to have faith if we had hard evidence to go with it?

[Obiwan]

The "missing Papyrus" Theory

Let's get real.... There is no "theory", because according to the record, there is a LOT of papyrus missing.

So, until the actual papayri is "definatively" found, know-one can say either way.

[rick7475]

If it was his scribes were trying to practice their understanding of Egyptian characters with the KEP (assuming they were Joseph's scribes and not Joseph himself), wouldn't they use characters near the beginning of the scrolls or close to a familiar diagram (ie facsimile 1) to start. It makes logical sense to start some where with a series of characters and move onto the next series when they have been able to deciper the first batch.

They may have used other characters in other session on other practice papers. We do not know if there were other papers used for practicing that were lost that might have used characters from other scrolls.

But what we do have is a fragment that they were using that would logically have been separated from the rest for study. This separation ultimately saved the fragment from the Chicago fire.

There is no conclusive proof that the surviving fragments were the only ones that were used to try and translate the characters. The descriptions of eye-witnesses idicate more than the fragments existed.

And, according to Rhodes, Gee, and Tvedtnes, the early tradition of Abraham exists in many other forms, from Mandaen, Moslem, Jewish, Coptic, and so on. Almost all having been translated into English well passed Joseph's lifetime. These traditions all have elements that match the BoA. In fact, where the BoA contradicts the Bible, the contradictions also exist in the early traditions.

And according to Gee, as noted above, Egyptian characters have been found with the name Abraham associated with a lion couch scene.

So, whether you believe in the catalyst theory or the lost scrolls theory, internal evidence suggests that a Book of Abraham, similiar to the many other traditions of Abraham found outside the Bible, did in fact exist. And, external evidence brought to light in recent years show that Abraham has been mentioned on Egyptian papyra.

So, in extrapolating the data:

1. There was indeed a book of Abraham, or collection of ealy life stories that did not exist in the Bible.

2. Joseph brought forth those early traditions in the BoA before many of them were translated into English

3. Abraham was written on papyra, and the very lion couch scene Joseph describes has been shown in other papyra.

4. Witnesses mentioned more than one scroll, more than the fragments we have.

5. Scholars such as Gee and Rhodes do not leave their brains at the door if their research has produced these conclusions and found papyri bearing the name of Abraham or Lion couch scenes that were previously thought of as impossible by other Egyptologists.

6. The KEP papers show us characters from existing fragments, and do not show characters from a possible scoll containing the exact text of the BoA because they may have started with those characters first. There may have been other 'KEP' papers from other scrolls that were lost, just as there may have been many more papyri that have been lost.

In conclusion, many critics are too hasty in their judgments (no surprise here) and over the years evidence keeps emerging that supports Joseph's translation of the BoA, whether internal or external.

And yes, go read Rhode's web page http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/

[Dale]

I don't think it possible to dissacociate Joseph Smith from the reverse engineering project. Unless the part of the papyrus from which the translation came from was clear he would have known the project was a failure. Joseph Smith and the scribes should have known the location of the missing text if it had been translated previously. For individuals involved in this project to start with untranslated text to do an EAG makes no sense. Wouldn't they have based a reverse engineering project on translated text?

[PacMan]

I don't think it possible to dissacociate Joseph Smith from the reverse engineering project. Unless the part of the papyrus from which the translation came from was clear he would have known the project was a failure. Joseph Smith and the scribes should have known the location of the missing text if it had been translated previously. For individuals involved in this project to start with untranslated text to do an EAG makes no sense. Wouldn't they have based a reverse engineering project on translated text?

It's possible, but not likely to be the case. I do want everyone to reconsider something, adding to what Will had said. Elsewhere I had quoted the BoMoses heading:

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830â??February 1831

What does that mean? Obviously, translation was a very, very loose term. So what? The important thing to remember is that the translation was a revelation, and Joseph even responded to that:

â??God in these last days has now given us the story from this papyrus written by the hand of Abraham through priests who knew nothing of Abraham, yet the hidden record is revealed by revelation because of the kindness of the Lord and His tender mercies upon His children. The Lord is able to make His word known and preserve it according to His will and not by the will of man who cannot penetrate his ways or His means by which sacred things are preserved. The characters on the papyrus bear knowledge unlike anything man has come to know in our day. I do not believe that any man can receive these things except by revelation and the gift given only to a seer, one who is called of God by prophecy to a lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what is generally aspired to by the human mind.â?

The interesting thing here is the fact that the priests through whom this written account of Abraham came, assuredly knew Egyptian. Yet, the record was "hidden" and only revealed by revelation, "not by the will of man who cannot penetrate his ways or His means by which sacred things are preserved."

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe there is significant reason to believe JS and scribes knew of Champollion...but that wasn't an issue. If anything, he and Anthon fell into the same category as a "man" whom cannot come to bear the knowledge that the papyrus holds...for the knowledge of the papyrus wasn't even understood by the priests, but preserved by the Lord.

The idea that Joseph "translated" the BoA as we think of it...character by character is (in my mind) clearly NOT the case. Joseph was finding the hidden/preserved meaning, and with the revealed narration, back engineered the text for this hidden meaning.

PacMan

[Dale]

One possibility the Lord could have given Joseph Smith a useless task to translate the papyrus. He allowed Abraham to really think he was going to sacrifice his son. So perhap's I thought similarly the Lord could have given Joseph smith content unrelated to the papyrus to test Joseph's discernment abilities. That even though the facimilies and other content was clearly from idol worshippers Joseph never came to see it.

The use of the few BOB characters next to paragraphs of text would have troubled Joseph and the scribes. Perhaps that would be the Lords way of telling Joseph Smith the two texts wern't related. Joseph never was smart enough to realize the Lord had allowed him to mislead himself. If the Lord expected Joseph Smith to be smart enough to see his translation couldn't be a translation the Lord let him continue in his ignorance of egyptian. Joseph said dumb things in public and in private about his unfinished translation, and the Lord never corrected him.

The problem is it's a matter of faith that Joseph smith was truly recieving a true revelation about Abraham. He could have been scamming his scribes into thinking he was translating. My idea really makes discussion of the EAG, Book of Breathings characters next to english translation as nothing that needs to be defended. Joseph Smith's sincerity, and the reality of his recieving a revelation from God would be the main issue. The Devil could have inspired him also. If no revelation was involved then Joseph Smith lied about translating the papyrus. But if revelation of the sincere kind was involved then Joseph wasn't scamming anybody.