Go John Gee! Go John Gee!

[Chris Smith]

Pahoran,

Your post is still abrasive, but because you've made the effort, I'll respond.

Which is rather remarkable, given your enthusiastic recommendation of Shades' obsession board. My posts here are tame compared to the normal behaviour of its leading citizens.

If you read my post there, you will see that I actually chastised its "leading citizens" for their behavior. I certainly do not approve of everything that goes on there, I do not recommend it "enthusiastically", and I actually think it needs greater moderation. I intentionally avoid interacting on certain threads and with certain people, just as I do here. Being selective about one's conversation partners makes for a much more pleasant message board experience all around. And if the experience isn't pleasant, why participate? That's the way I see it. So I trust that if you'd like to interact with me in the future, you will make an effort to be pleasant. Otherwise, don't expect me to reply.

The point, as Nibley himself clearly points out in a number of places, is not that any of these stories represent "what really happened" to or with Abraham, but that they represent a genuine textual tradition which dropped out of sight a good while before 1836.

By "genuine textual tradition," I assume you mean a genuine tradition that goes back to Abraham. But why in the world should we believe that, for example, the core of the Testament of Abraham is 4,000 years old? Is there any text-critical evidence to support that conclusion? Any historical evidence to support it? The problem is only aggravated when we start drawing parallels to the Talmud or, worse yet, to medieval midrash. Mormons demand evidence that Joseph Smith had ever read View of the Hebrews. I demand evidence that the Testament of Abraham is a "genuine textual tradition".

You will find that the (heh heh) "critics" rely upon "parallels" as slender as common two-word phrases, while Nibley relies on parallels of specific, detailed situations. The famous encounter between Enoch and Mahijah (Book of Moses) and Enoch and MHWY (Book of Enoch) being the first one that came to my mind. Are you going to tell us, with a dead straight face, that that is no more surprising than "forts of security" and "places of security?"

"Forts of security" and "places of security" is unimpressive. But what if I showed you somebody writing in 1823 who says that this continent used to be inhabited by two races of Indians, one black one white, the white civilized and the black one uncivilized? And what if this source also said that the white Indians had in fact emigrated from Europe, that they knew about metalworking, the arts, and sophisticated fortifications (including "throwing up the earth" to create "breast-works"-- cp. Alma 53:4) but that they were exterminated by their savage dark-skinned neighbors? Would that be impressive enough to match, say, Abraham seeing a vision after making a sacrifice?

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC3569...;num=30#PPA1,M1

See pages 52-54.

As for Mahijah, that is one of the more interesting parallels, but is frankly still not very impressive. The absence of vowels in Aramaic-- and the ability of W to serve as either a "W" sound or a "U" sound (not an "I" sound, by the way)-- makes it that much more likely that Joseph would get a lucky hit. And since Mehujah-el is already found in the Bible, it's not hard to imagine Joseph modifying the name slightly to arrive at the form found in Moses. The BoM parallel I mentioned above is much more interesting, and isn't found in a work 1300 years removed from the one we're trying to relate it to.

Do you still think permitting methodologically uncontrolled parallels into evidence is going to help your cause?

Here's one that is methodologically controlled that gets ignored a lot cause it's old as dirt, but that's nonetheless damning: roughly two chapters of the Book of Abraham are plagiarized from the King James Bible, and the emendations thereto theologically expand upon emendations made already in the Book of Moses.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,18834

-CK

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will,

Iâ??m not sure I understand why your â??instinctâ? would be to â??avoid hypothesizing the existence of a mysterious â??Qâ? document if at all possible.â? Why is that?

I've done a little reading on some of the arguments over New Testament source criticism. Researchers seem to have a penchant for hypothesizing the existence of now-lost sources, like proto-Luke or a half-dozen separate letters of Paul to the Corinthians. I do think the Q hypothesis in NT studies is warranted, and I also think the Documentary Hypothesis has dished out some real blunt force trauma to its rivals. But I'm wary of such hypotheses when they fail to adduce significant evidentiary support, if only because they are something of a fad in biblical studies.

-CK

[Dan Vogel]

I don't see this to be true. There are critics out there who desire to destroy the lds church. When they write on church doctrine it is their intent to sow doubt in the minds of the lds. However, when a neutral historian writes about JS and he or she has no agenda but to render facts or understandings in an objective way, I do think that these books can be valuable and useful for understanding and these books can be classified as 'historical'. I do think Dan that in your work you may have an agenda. I don't know if I would call you a neutral writer on Mormonism.

The JS story is rather compelling to say the least. Of course, one can push a theory but it is quite another thing to prove the theory being pushed. The lds church is surviving mainly because lds members still believe in the book and in the spiritual manifestations that the book presents in their lives.

And it is this understanding that makes all the difference.

I don't claim to be a neutral writer. Bushman is not a neutral writer either, but I doubt you would complain about that. I think neutral writers are borring. Writers like Remini make a decision to repeat the traditional story; that's fine for his task. But there will be no groundbreaking insights, no discussion, and no progress.

My objective is not to destroy the LDS church. That is not likely to ever happen. But sowing doubt is a good thing, since doubt and skepticism helps us keep balance.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Your post is still abrasive, but because you've made the effort, I'll respond.

Oh, how magnanimously condescending of you. Please don't do me any favours, CK, it's not as if I crave your attention.

You may respond to me or not; you may sool your tame board nanny onto me or not, as it pleases you. It is a matter of no real moment to me.

By "genuine textual tradition," I assume you mean a genuine tradition that goes back to Abraham.

Why on earth would you assume that? Is that what I said?

Mormons demand evidence that Joseph Smith had ever read View of the Hebrews. I demand evidence that the Testament of Abraham is a "genuine textual tradition".

It is written; that makes it textual. It is old, and it is not the only one of its type; that makes it representative of a tradition. What other "evidence" could you demand?

"Forts of security" and "places of security" is unimpressive. But what if I showed you somebody writing in 1823 who says that this continent used to be inhabited by two races of Indians, one black one white, the white civilized and the black one uncivilized? And what if this source also said that the white Indians had in fact emigrated from Europe, that they knew about metalworking, the arts, and sophisticated fortifications (including "throwing up the earth" to create "breast-works"-- cp. Alma 53:4) but that they were exterminated by their savage dark-skinned neighbors? Would that be impressive enough to match, say, Abraham seeing a vision after making a sacrifice?

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC3569...;num=30#PPA1,M1

See pages 52-54.

Well, what if you did?

Page 50: the author suggests a 12th century migration from Wales, look you, to America.

Page 51: the author proposes that, some time prior to 1524, an expedition left France, in the vicinity of Anjou, and went to America, "incorporating themselves with some friendly tribe of Indians." Supports this by comparing Indian adobe bricks with those made in France.

Page 52: supports the "French migration" theory by pointing out how easily the French are able to mingle with the Indians. Also that "the aborigines of America... could of themselves never have produced" some metal implements he claims had been found. Hmmmm....

Page 53: speculates that these French settlers would have intermarried with Indians and produced "a race of light complexioned men" who knew how to build field fortifications. This would give great advantage to the tribes with which they were allied, so their enemies would have imitated them, and having the advantage of numbers, could have extirminated them. The phrase "black Indians" there appears, italics per original. Woo-hoo!

Yes, you've absolutely discovered the "source" for The Book of Mormon. As everyone knows (who has never opened it) it is all about "black Indians" wiping out the descendants of French settlers.

Just one little question: given that The Book of Mormon was highly controversial in Joseph's day, how many of contemporaries waved this book around triumphantly as evidence of its origins?

Please don't answer that question if it seems too "abrasive" to you.

As for Mahijah, that is one of the more interesting parallels, but is frankly still not very impressive. The absence of vowels in Aramaic-- and the ability of W to serve as either a "W" sound or a "U" sound (not an "I" sound, by the way)-- makes it that much more likely that Joseph would get a lucky hit.

That's right. It's merely a lucky coincidence of letters. The fact that Mahijah and MHWY both step forward as representatives of their people to confront Enoch in a catechetical session that results in Enoch reciting his history is simply not worth a mention, is it?

And since Mehujah-el is already found in the Bible, it's not hard to imagine Joseph modifying the name slightly to arrive at the form found in Moses.

Well then, that explains everything, doesn't it?

The BoM parallel I mentioned above is much more interesting, and isn't found in a work 1300 years removed from the one we're trying to relate it to.

No.

It's found in a work 1400 years removed.

You spout a lot of erudite-sounding labels, like text-criticism just for example, but don't you know that the first rule of examining a questioned historical document is to place it in the context it claims for itself? All sorts of parallels can be found between almost any two books, so it is a trivially easy exercise to compare the BofM to something modern (such as Leaves of Grass) and pontificate knowingly about the parallels there "discovered." A friend of mine showed the same thing with one of the Norse sagas a few years back.

Do you still think permitting methodologically uncontrolled parallels into evidence is going to help your cause?

No. Do you? It seems that "methodological control," in whatever parts of speech fit the sentence, is merely being brandished by you as a symbol of some kind. Do not expect it to intimidate me. You will be disappointed.

Here's one that is methodologically controlled that gets ignored a lot cause it's old as dirt, but that's nonetheless damning:

As I said, you show no respect for the banner you keep waving. Looking for something "damning" is not methodology, it's polemics.

roughly two chapters of the Book of Abraham are plagiarized from the King James Bible,

CK, here is a suggestion:

1. Find a good dictionary.
   
2. Look up the word "plagiarize."
   

Since Joseph nowhere claims authorship for The Book of Abraham, and since he and everyone else has always explicitly linked it to Genesis, the accusation of "plagiarism" is manifestly false.

And gives the lie to your scholarly pretensions, BTW.

and the emendations thereto theologically expand upon emendations made already in the Book of Moses.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,18834

Now that's interesting.

Hardly "damning," but certainly interesting.

Pity the wretched article can only be accessed one page at a time.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

supports the "French migration" theory

The author builds his French migration theory on an alleged Native American myth of the "black Indians" and the "white Indians". Someone else might just as easily have built the Book of Mormon story on the same myth. The similarities are certainly striking.

Yes, you've absolutely discovered the "source" for The Book of Mormon.

Then again, I didn't claim to have "discovered the source for the Book of Mormon". I merely claimed that this parallel is way the heck better than anything the Nibleyites have come up with to support the Book of Abraham.

By the way, if "unparallels" are permitted as counter-evidence (and judging from your response above I presume you think they are), then every proposed BoA parallel fails miserably, including Mahijah. In the Book of Giants, Mahway/Mahuja is one of the Nephilim: a fallen angel. The giants have been having dreams predicting their imminent destruction, so they send Mahway/Mahuja to paradise (where "the scribe" Enoch resides) to get Enoch to interpret the dreams and tell them how much time they have left. Enoch forecasts the coming Flood and apparently relates some kind of other vision as well (the manuscript is quite fragmentary). In Moses, Enoch is a prophet who goes out to preach against all the wickedness of his contemporaries. A man named Mahijah (MHYYH is what we would expect here) asks him who he is and where he comes from. That is this Mahijah's entire role in the story. He is not one of the Nephilim, he does not travel to paradise, and he does not ask Enoch to interpret a dream.

Are there similarities? Sure. Are they interesting similarities? Sure. Do they constitute a solid evidence that the Book of Moses is true? No. I'm willing to admit them to the evidentiary table, but I'm not going to buy into the Book of Moses based on that alone. Are there "unparallels" of the sort you find in my black/white Indians example? Heck yeah there are.

All sorts of parallels can be found between almost any two books, so it is a trivially easy exercise to compare the BofM to something modern (such as Leaves of Grass) and pontificate knowingly about the parallels there "discovered." A friend of mine showed the same thing with one of the Norse sagas a few years back.

This is precisely my point.

It is written; that makes it textual. It is old, and it is not the only one of its type; that makes it representative of a tradition.

So if somebody in 400 A.D. made up a "fact" about Abraham-- say, that he was nearly killed by Nimrod-- and this "fact" was then copied into a number of medieval texts, where Nimrod becomes pharaoh, and the Book of Abraham parallels this by saying a pharaoh tried to kill Abraham, then the mere "old"ness of this "textual tradition" serves as evidence that the BoA is true? How, pray tell, do you arrive at that conclusion?

-CK

[cdowis]

(snip) I mean, it's obvious that the people who produced these documents believed there was a relationship between the BoB characters and the Book of Abraham. No one is disputing that. I'm only arguing that it is not a valid argument; not an "evidence-supported" argument to claim that the documents make a clear and specific association between the characters in the left margin and the English text. In several cases in Williams' Ms. #2, the characters appear to be placed with much uncertainty -- as though the scribe didn't have any idea what their specific relationship was to the English text in the body of the document. Ms. #3 simply perpetuates the approximate placement of the characters in Ms. #2.

I suppose the underlying thrust of this entire discussion is that Mss. #2 and #3 are not transcripts of an oral dictation. I don't believe the body of text-critical evidence will support that argument, contrary to the critics' claims. I understand that Metcalfe is still adamant regarding that interpretation. I do not believe it will stand up to close scrutiny, and that professional text-critical analysis will establish that both manuscripts are copies of an ********earlier document********** -- notwithstanding the presence of the common emendations. The weight of the evidence supporting the "visual copies" argument will exceed the weight of the evidence supporting "dictation".

(emphasis mine)

It appears from the urgent nature of this discussion that the KEP is an albatross around the neck of those espousing the "missing papyrus" theory. There seems to be alot of discomfort and squirming over jots and tittles.

Okey dokey, your assessment is that it is not a dictation, a *copy* of an earlier document. If the characters do not precisely match the text, it's obviously not an attempt at "re-engineering" the BOA translation. Would you not agree?

Then pray tell us, it is a copy of..... what? Your comment only puts off the issue of the actual nature of the KEP, or its parent.

I still see alot of smoke, and still no clarity.

What will this mean in the bigger picture of the Book of Abraham controversy? That remains to be seen. It certainly won't prove that Joseph Smith knew how to translate Egyptian.

And who exactly is making that claim? As far as I can see, only the "missing papyrus" folks.

[William Schryver]

cdowis:

It appears from the urgent nature of this discussion that the KEP is an albatross around the neck of those espousing the "missing papyrus" theory. There seems to be alot of discomfort and squirming over jots and tittles.

Okey dokey, your assessment is that it is not a dictation, a *copy* of an earlier document. If the characters do not precisely match the text, it's obviously not an attempt at "re-engineering" the BOA translation. Would you not agree?

Then pray tell us, it is a copy of..... what? Your comment only puts off the issue of the actual nature of the KEP, or its parent.

I still see alot of smoke, and still no clarity.

Part of the problem is that we got sidetracked into this discussion about the placement of the characters in relationship to the English text â?? an issue that is admittedly not that important. Itâ??s just that it seems odd to me that (in the Williams manuscript) there doesnâ??t seem to be this sense of definite certainty that the scribe is associating the characters with specific blocks of text. The Parrish manuscript is different. There, you get a character, then a nice indentation and a new paragraph. But then, the Parrish document is just cleaner and neater altogether. It just makes me wonder if the â??reverse-engineeringâ? idea might have some merit. They have an English text. They have what they think is its source (the BoB). So they kind of equally divide up the characters with the English text and then start trying to make sense of it.

Anyway, simply put, here is a â??nutshellâ? version of the the import of much of this debate.

1. The historical evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham was received prior to November 1835 (which is when Warren Parrish commenced to work as a scribe for Joseph Smith.)

2. The text-critical evidence points to the fact that both the Williams and the Parrish manuscripts are visual copies. There are many reasons for this conclusion, but certainly the dittograph on page 4 of Ms. #2 is a large piece of evidence.

3. If Abr. 1 â?? 3 was â??translatedâ? prior to November 1835, and if Mss. #2 and #3 are visual copies of an older document, then the original â??translationâ? document is missing â?? and therefore we donâ??t really know if that document is attempting to show a relationship between the Book of Breathings characters and the Book of Abraham. In fact, the assumption is that the original document would not have any Egyptian characters on it. The thinking is that Joseph Smith received the initial chapters of the Book of Abraham as early as July via the Urim and Thummim. He didnâ??t really know what Egyptian text corresponded to that revelation, and so from late July to October he and his buddies set out to build an Egyptian Grammar armed with what they assumed was a translation of the papyri they had. Of course, they donâ??t get very far, and they finally give up. And then Warren Parrish starts writing for Joseph in November, and they â??translateâ? some more of the Book of Abraham, which then gets put on the shelf until itâ??s finally published in Nauvoo in 1842. And then sometime between November 1835 and when Warren Parrish apostatized, he and Frederick Williams and W.W. Phelps tried to tie the English â??translationâ? to the Egyptian text â?? also with no success. Why would they try this? Because they each believed they had been given the ability to figure this stuff out as well as Joseph Smith could.

If the translation of the first three chapters occurred before the employment of Warren Parrish (and thatâ??s what the pieces of historical evidence point to), then these KEP manuscripts can be nothing but some kind of study papers. If they are visual copies of an earlier document, (and the text-criticial evidence points to this) then they obviously canâ??t be the result of the original translation. They therefore must be something else. Iâ??m certainly open to suggestions. All Iâ??m saying is that the evidence points away from the theory that these were transcripts of Joseph Smith dictating a â??translation.â?

Bottom line: I personally donâ??t believe Joseph Smith ever knew the actual source of the Book of Abraham. Yes, he believed it was somewhere in the papyri. And maybe it was. But if it was, it apparently wasnâ??t the part that he and his scribes came to believe was the source: the Book of Breathings.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

To clarify, are you saying that the Williams manuscript doesn't always associate characters with distinct blocks of text? Or are you just saying that the breaks between those blocks of text doesn't always occur cleanly at the end of a sentence or paragraph?

-CK

[William Schryver]

Will,

To clarify, are you saying that the Williams manuscript doesn't always associate characters with distinct blocks of text? Or are you just saying that the breaks between those blocks of text doesn't always occur cleanly at the end of a sentence or paragraph?

-CK

I think that, for the most part, you can look at a character and say that it corresponds to a certain block of text. There are two or three exceptions, where it just looks like there was uncertainty about where exactly the character should be placed -- unlike the Parrish document where the characters are always clearly associated with either a paragraph or a little line that Parrish draws as a demarcation point between lines.

Anyway, I didn't really mean for this to become a big deal. I don't think it is. As I said yesterday, I don't think it really makes much difference. I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't believe Don Bradley's statement about the relationship of the characters to the text was quite as obvious and clear-cut as he was suggesting. In the Parrish manuscript, it is. The Williams manuscript is a different story. Of course, that's part of the reason some of us place the Parrish manuscript in a different recension than the Williams manuscript.

[cdowis]

3. If Abr. 1 – 3 was “translated” prior to November 1835, and if Mss. #2 and #3 are visual copies of an older document, then the original “translation” document is missing – and therefore we don’t really know if that document is attempting to show a relationship between the Book of Breathings characters and the Book of Abraham. In fact, the assumption is that the original document would not have any Egyptian characters on it. The thinking is that Joseph Smith received the initial chapters of the Book of Abraham as early as July via the Urim and Thummim. He didn’t really know what Egyptian text corresponded to that revelation, and so from late July to October he and his buddies set out to build an Egyptian Grammar armed with what they assumed was a translation of the papyri they had. Of course, they don’t get very far, and they finally give up. And then Warren Parrish starts writing for Joseph in November, and they “translate” some more of the Book of Abraham, which then gets put on the shelf until it’s finally published in Nauvoo in 1842. And then sometime between November 1835 and when Warren Parrish apostatized, he and Frederick Williams and W.W. Phelps tried to tie the English “translation” to the Egyptian text – also with no success. Why would they try this? Because they each believed they had been given the ability to figure this stuff out as well as Joseph Smith could.

If the translation of the first three chapters occurred before the employment of Warren Parrish (and that’s what the pieces of historical evidence point to), then these KEP manuscripts can be nothing but some kind of study papers. If they are visual copies of an earlier document, (and the text-criticial evidence points to this) then they obviously can’t be the result of the original translation. They therefore must be something else. I’m certainly open to suggestions. All I’m saying is that the evidence points away from the theory that these were transcripts of Joseph Smith dictating a “translation.”

Bottom line: I personally don’t believe Joseph Smith ever knew the actual source of the Book of Abraham. Yes, he believed it was somewhere in the papyri. And maybe it was. But if it was, it apparently wasn’t the part that he and his scribes came to believe was the source: the Book of Breathings.

Thank you for your response.

Here is my bottom line: I think the "re-engineering" theory is based on very thin or non-existent evidence. The only reason for this theory is an attempt to salvage the "missing manuscript" theory.

The very idea that Parrish, et al, were attempting to act as "junior translators", and they were using text that had absolutely nothing to do with the BOA is .... I just don't find it plausible.

This was a working document or study initiated by JS himself, to assist JS in the continued translation of the BOA. He knew what he was doing, and he knew that the Lord was not going to hand him the translation on a platter without effort on his part. He was required to "study it out in your mind", and this is a result of that effort. The former theory makes little sense, but my scenario makes perfect sense, if you are willing to abandon the "missing papyrus" theory in favour of another one.

Finally, I agree that JS probably did not know how to translate Egyptian in a conventional sense. But the BOD was not meant to be translated in a conventional manner.

Instead of running away from the KEP in embarrassment, we should embrace it as solid indication of how JS did it.

I realize this is an uphill battle, but I predict in 50 years that people will say, "It was so obvious."

[William Schryver]

Thank you for your response.

Here is my bottom line: I think the "re-engineering" theory is based on very thin or non-existent evidence. The only reason for this theory is an attempt to salvage the "missing manuscript" theory.

The very idea that Parrish, et al, were attempting to act as "junior translators", and they were using text that had absolutely nothing to do with the BOA is .... I just don't find it plausible.

This was a working document or study initiated by JS himself, to assist JS in the continued translation of the BOA. He knew what he was doing, and he knew that the Lord was not going to hand him the translation on a platter without effort on his part. He was required to "study it out in your mind", and this is a result of that effort. The former theory makes little sense, but my scenario makes perfect sense, if you are willing to abandon the "missing papyrus" theory in favour of another one.

Finally, I agree that JS probably did not know how to translate Egyptian in a conventional sense. But the BOD was not meant to be translated in a conventional manner.

Instead of running away from the KEP in embarrassment, we should embrace it as solid indication of how JS did it.

I realize this is an uphill battle, but I predict in 50 years that people will say, "It was so obvious."

You could very well be right. My only point is that the historical evidence is pointing persuasively to the fact that Abr. 1 - 3 was translated before November 1835; before Parrish was on board. And the textual analysis is pointing persuasively to the fact that the Williams and Parrish documents are visual copies. If we assume those two things, then what follows? I'm not entirely sure. It will require a lot of thinking on the part of a lot of people. But I do believe that those two facts will become accepted parameters of the discussion in the future.

[why me]

Don,

I was going to respond in detail to your abusive torrent of falsehoods, but I've decided not to come down to your level.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

You will need to understand that it is perfectly okay for countermos to be abrasive and rude. But for lds posters, this is not allowed by the countermos. When it does occure, many will call you on it. They will attempt to give you a sense of injustice done because of your posts.

I like the way you post. You tell it like it is and this honestly can rock the countermo boat. I appreciate your pressence here. Keep up the good work in defending the lds church against the speculations of the countermo faithful.