By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

[krose]

... Knowledge isn't everything. Being able to "out-debate" isn't everything. And we would do well to remember that "knowledge puffs up". Ultimately, people aren't going to look at how much you know, but how much you care, how "Christlike" you are in actions and words. Or as Paul said, in the end all that really matters is charity, and he that has charity, "it shall be well with him at the last day". So I hope Rom bears this in mind when he serves.

Right, Ray. I sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been converted by a clever argument that seems to lay waste to their points.

[William Schryver]

I won't rehash the arguments as to why such a thing is preferable. The short of it is, if Joseph Smith is going to get such small details wrong, yet be believed on the big details (for example, accurately translating an ancient Egyptian text into several pages of English), well, that just requires too big of a jump for me.

What "small details" did he get wrong?

After all, if "by his hand on papyrus" is, as Nibley eloquently illustrated, a very Egyptian-esque idiom one would expect to find on an ancient copy of a text purporting to originate with Abraham, then it would seem that the inclusion of that phrase would be a "small detail" he got very right.

As for whether or not Joseph Smith himself believed the papyrus in his possession was the actual handiwork of Abraham is anything but certain. In other words, the evidence is inconclusive. However, I cannot see what difference it would make to the authenticity of his "translation" if he did believe he was holding an actual Abraham holograph. He certainly wasn't in as good a position as we are in 2009 to realize that "by his hand on papyrus" was a phrase that did not necessarily connote an actual holograph. And I, for one, do not believe prophets are omniscient.

Indeed, the only people I've ever found who insist upon omniscient prophets are those who no longer believe in prophets.

[William Schryver]

CS:

I simply want accurate information to be available to those who are really looking for it ...

Spoken like a true Vogelite.

Your journey is complete, young Christopher.

[ttribe]

Right, Ray. I sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been converted by a clever argument that seems to lay waste to their points.

No light-hearted remark goes unpunished apparently. I wasn't suggesting that conversion had ever been accomplished via "clever argument".

[Tarski]

When I read the OP "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus What Exactly Does That Phrase Mean?"

I thought to myself "Let me guess! It means something other than `By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus'".

I typed these words with my own hands on a computer.

Could it be that under the influence of the apologetic impulse, erudition becomes obfuscation?

[Nofear]

I ultimately think of myself more as a critic of bad apologetics than of the Church anyway...

I appreciate this approach. There is some need of it. Alas, too bad you're not a believer.

[ttribe]

When I read the OP "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus What Exactly Does That Phrase Mean?"

I thought to myself "Let me guess! It means something other than `By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus'".

I typed these words with my own hands on a computer.

Could it be that under the influence of the apologetic impulse, erudition becomes obfuscation?

Ahhh...so strict literalism is the preferred worldview then?

[Scottie]

Ahhh...so strict literalism is the preferred worldview then?

Ahh... I get it. Anything can be turned into a symbolic metaphor if it suits the apologetic cause, regardless of how it was intended?

[sethpayne]

Ahh... I get it. Anything can be turned into a symbolic metaphor if it suits the apologetic cause, regardless of how it was intended?

But Scottie, you have absolutely no way of knowing what Joseph Smith intended by the phrase "by his own hands upon papyrus." It should be patently obvious that he intended it metaphorically.

Next time I go in for a talk with my Bishop I'm going to tell him that I read the WoW and law of chastity metaphorically. I wonder how far I'll get in obtaining a TR ....

[Nomad]

But Scottie, you have absolutely no way of knowing what Joseph Smith intended by the phrase "by his own hands upon papyrus." It should be patently obvious that he intended it metaphorically.

Next time I go in for a talk with my Bishop I'm going to tell him that I read the WoW and law of chastity metaphorically. I wonder how far I'll get in obtaining a TR ....

Why is it that no one even bothers to engage the argument made by Nibley, which was cited extensively above?

It's easy enough for you critics to continue knocking down what essentially amounts to a strawman: the notion that Joseph Smith believed that the papyrus he had was an actual holograph of the patriarch Abraham. (A notion that is, incidentally, not at all certain.)

It's easy enough to avoid the real argument and continue to defeat the one you think represents a fat target. Never mind that the implicit intent of Rommelator's opening post was to place the Nibley argument in discussion. You just keep knocking down the straw man to your heart's delight.

/return to lurk mode

[ttribe]

Ahh... I get it. Anything can be turned into a symbolic metaphor if it suits the apologetic cause, regardless of how it was intended?

Come on Scottie, why the appeal to the opposite extreme? Am I advocating such a thing? I think you know the answer to that. The fact is, for many, the door is closed to even the possibility of something other than a strict literal interpretation of all manner of things when it comes to criticizing the Church. The point of my post was to simply push the reader a little more to the middle.

[Chris Smith]

Spoken like a true Vogelite.

I'm not surprised to learn that Dan has a similar philosophy. We have gone through similar journeys and have similar ways of thinking.

Your journey is complete, young Christopher.

Let's hope not.

[Scottie]

Come on Scottie, why the appeal to the opposite extreme? Am I advocating such a thing? I think you know the answer to that. The fact is, for many, the door is closed to even the possibility of something other than a strict literal interpretation of all manner of things when it comes to criticizing the Church. The point of my post was to simply push the reader a little more to the middle.

Fair enough.

But, you have to understand that this is just one more example of apologists assigning meaning where they have no warrant to do so.

BY blood atonement... he wasn't serious.

Adam/God... he meant something else.

Many JS quotes reaffirming a hemispheric model... it was his opinion and he didn't know what he was talking about.

JS says it was written by his hand... it wasn't meant to be literal.

Apologists LOVE to clarify, with certainty, how a statement was intended. How they think they have the authority or knowledge to go back and ascertain these, I have no idea.

As to pushing critics more towards the middle, I do agree with you there. Without inflection, it is impossible to know exactly how something was meant. It is entirely possible that many of the quotes used against the leaders were not said in the way we read them now. I'm not sure it is necessarily fair for a critic to automatically assume the worst when reading a quote.

[ttribe]

As to pushing critics more towards the middle, I do agree with you there. Without inflection, it is impossible to know exactly how something was meant. It is entirely possible that many of the quotes used against the leaders were not said in the way we read them now. I'm not sure it is necessarily fair for a critic to automatically assume the worst when reading a quote.

Very good...that's all I was getting at.

[sethpayne]

Very good...that's all I was getting at.

I love when we have come by yar moments.

[John Williams]

I'm not surprised to learn that Dan has a similar philosophy. We have gone through similar journeys and have similar ways of thinking.

Let's hope not.

I for one appreciate your approach, Chris. Why your expressed desire for truth and accuracy has incurred the disdain of Will "Circle of Life" Schryver is anyone's guess.

It's very difficult to understand what Joseph Smith was thinking at the time. The evidence seems to point in the direction of his wanting people to believe that he had an Abrahamic autograph, but most of us here would agree that he was mistaken.

[William Schryver]

But, you have to understand that this is just one more example of apologists assigning meaning where they have no warrant to do so.

BY blood atonement... he wasn't serious.

Adam/God... he meant something else.

Many JS quotes reaffirming a hemispheric model... it was his opinion and he didn't know what he was talking about.

JS says it was written by his hand... it wasn't meant to be literal.

Apologists LOVE to clarify, with certainty, how a statement was intended. How they think they have the authority or knowledge to go back and ascertain these, I have no idea.

This post exemplifies one of the major burdens that apostates labor under: their insatiable need to reduce every question down to terms sufficiently simple to be molded into soundbites.

For example, the discussion of Joseph Smith allegedly affirming (presumably by revelation) a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography. As I recently re-read Matt Roper's fabulous compendium of documentary evidence for this controversy, Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations, it struck me that the problem with most of the critics is that they suffer from an overwhelming aversion to complex questions. They are predominantly products of the post-baby boomer era, and they are accustomed to soundbite expressions of "facts."

Of course, historical questions are notorious for being anything but simple. They are often convoluted and do not lend themselves to certain conclusions.

That said, the issue of Joseph Smith believing in a hemispheric model for BoM geography is one that is rather easily debunked. But, of course, that doesn't prevent critics like Scottie from acting as though it is a given that Joseph Smith believed what he (Scottie) believes he (Joseph Smith) believed. The facts be damned if they tend to disagree with Scottie's preconceived notions in the matter.

And so it goes, round and round. We dance this same dance over and over and over again. Critics like Scottie stick around here because it's all part and parcel of the process they're working through in "getting out" of Mormonism. They must continually disprove Mormonism with each passing day, like Sisyphus and his stone.

People like me are here to point out the blatant errors in the logic and argumentation employed by the apostates, in the hope that some unsuspecting soul who happens by does not reach the mistaken conclusion that everyone is taking this crap lying down.

[William Schryver]

I for one appreciate your approach, Chris. Why your expressed desire for truth and accuracy has incurred the disdain of Will "Circle of Life" Schryver is anyone's guess.

It's very difficult to understand what Joseph Smith was thinking at the time. The evidence seems to point in the direction of his wanting people to believe that he had an Abrahamic autograph, but most of us here would agree that he was mistaken.

And yet another apostate come to smack down the straw man.

I've got a good suggestion: why not wax courageous and take a stab at Nibley's argument that Rommelator took the time to cite above? That, of course, is the real issue; not whether Joseph Smith believed he held a holograph of Abraham in his hands.

Alas, I understand: it's much easier to stick to the talking points dictated by the party line. Oh, well ... carry on.

[John Williams]

It's fascinating to see one post from Scottie being applied to every "apostate," as if we're some monolithic group of reductivist thinkers who cannot comprehend anything more subtle than a soundbite. Talk about someone spreading crap.

Anyway, it's obvious that Mormonism and its history and origins are complex issues. However, some questions are rather simple, whereas others are not. Constructing a stereotypical apostate out of one post tends toward the very crime of reductiveness that William otherwise decries. Mote, say hello to beam.

[John Williams]

And yet another apostate come to smack down the straw man.

I've got a good suggestion: why not wax courageous and take a stab at Nibley's argument that Rommelator took the time to cite above? That, of course, is the real issue; not whether Joseph Smith believed he held a holograph of Abraham in his hands.

Alas, I understand: it's much easier to stick to the talking points dictated by the party line. Oh, well ... carry on.

What are you talking about? Both Chris and I have acknowledged Rommelator's point and have no argument with it. Whether or not JS thought he had an autograph is beside the point, talking or otherwise. As Chris said, the idea that there's probative value in Joseph's belief or nonbelief that he had an autograph is silly.

Smacking down a strawman generally involves creating one.

[Chris Smith]

I've got a good suggestion: why not wax courageous and take a stab at Nibley's argument that Rommelator took the time to cite above?

At the risk of sounding redundant, here's what I wrote in post #44:

As for your OP, I agree with Nibley's argument that "by his own hand" in an ancient manuscript doesn't necessarily mean it's a holograph. Heck, one of the New Testament epistles claims to be signed by Paul's own hand, but of course this claim comes to us through copies and copies of copies. We don't have the original. Nibley's argument as applied to the BoA is made problematic, though, by the fact that the phrase "by his own hand" does not seem to have been translated from the papyrus itself. The header of the earliest manuscript that includes the phrase reads, "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt". Obviously this header is not a literal rendering of a title from the papyrus. The references to the translation and discovery of the papyri make that an impossibility. And the capitalization of "Book of Abraham" over against the lowercase rendering of "written by his own hand" is another indication that the latter is not strictly part of the document title. The capitalization distinction is even stronger in the title of the 1842 publication, where "Book of Abraham" is rendered in all caps and "written..." is again all lowercase.

[...]

You closed the OP by stating, in effect, that even if Smith believed the papyrus was an Abraham autograph it wouldn't matter, because that was simply Smith's belief or assumption and not a revealed truth. To my mind, that is the best apologetic approach to this question. It is perhaps less satisfying, but it is far sounder and much more difficult for a critic to effectively rebut.

Much easier to smack down straw men and make fun of critics than answer a complex argument, eh Will?

-Chris

[William Schryver]

It's fascinating to see one post from Scottie being applied to every "apostate," as if we're some monolithic group of reductivist thinkers who cannot comprehend anything more subtle than a soundbite. Talk about someone spreading crap.

Anyway, it's obvious that Mormonism and its history and origins are complex issues. However, some questions are rather simple, whereas others are not. Constructing a stereotypical apostate out of one post tends toward the very crime of reductiveness that William otherwise decries. Mote, say hello to beam.

Never mind that I plainly said:

... the problem with most of the critics is that they suffer from an overwhelming aversion to complex questions.

Of course, I'd have to say, based on extensive experience, this criticism applies fairly well to every critic currently participating on this particular thread.

Reductionists of the LDS apostate stripe consistently flatter themselves that they have a confident grasp on the details. Of course, that's only because they've reduced the number of details to whatever extent they find necessary to make the matter manageable. Naturally, they congratulate themselves in so doing, claiming that they have thereby also reduced the degree of cognitive dissonance under which they had previously been burdened.

Strangely enough, from that point on, they never seem to have any recollection whatsoever of the baby that was thrown out with the bath water.

[Vance]

If I am translating or transcribing a document that says â??written by John Doe by his own hand upon papyrusâ?, am I supposed to eliminate the â??by his own hand upon papyrusâ? from my translation or copy?

Or do I include it?

If I include it, does that make me an evil charlatan?

[William Schryver]

At the risk of sounding redundant, here's what I wrote in post #44:

The header of the earliest manuscript that includes the phrase reads, "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt". Obviously this header is not a literal rendering of a title from the papyrus. The references to the translation and discovery of the papyri make that an impossibility. And the capitalization of "Book of Abraham" over against the lowercase rendering of "written by his own hand" is another indication that the latter is not strictly part of the document title. The capitalization distinction is even stronger in the title of the 1842 publication, where "Book of Abraham" is rendered in all caps and "written..." is again all lowercase.

Much easier to smack down straw men and make fun of critics than answer a complex argument, eh Will?

-Chris

Dismissing Nibley's extensive argumentation via rhetorical fiat does not, in my judgment, constitute a counter argument. Your assertion that the capitalization in the original publication somehow contradicts Nibley is, to say the least, rather meaningless. Of course, there was no capitalization in ancient languages like Egyptian and Hebrew, and the capitalization standards in 1842 were anything but consistent, even for the same author.

But you are becoming increasingly noted for making these kinds of authoritative statements on the basis of nothing but rhetorical fiat. I've been observing it with interest for several months now. I'll bet that measurably decreases the need for footnotes in your "scholarly" papers.

[William Schryver]

If I am translating or transcribing a document that says â??written by John Doe by his own hand upon papyrusâ?, am I supposed to eliminate the â??by his own hand upon papyrusâ? from my translation or copy?

Or do I include it?

If I include it, does that make me an evil charlatan?

Don't attempt to wax logical with these folks. You'll only end up frustrated.