By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

[Chris Smith]

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

Or do I include it?

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

That's basically Nibley's argument, and of course you (and he) are right. A document claiming to be written by so-and-so's own hand could certainly still be a late copy.

But to apply this argument to the BoA is to assume that "written by his own hand" was part of the original document title, and was transferred over to the manuscripts from the papyrus itself. In other words, it requires that this was a claim the papyrus made for itself rather than one that JS made for it. Yet the manuscripts don't appear to bear out that particular assumption, since the manuscript header in which this phrase appears includes elements that mark it as nineteenth-century editorializing.

[Chris Smith]

Dismissing Nibley's extensive argumentation via rhetorical fiat does not, in my judgment, constitute a counter argument.

Sometimes I wonder if you're being deliberately ironic. But you're just so darn consistent that at the end of the day I have to believe you're sincere...

Of course, there was no capitalization in ancient languages like Egyptian and Hebrew

What's your point? We're talking about capitalization in the nineteenth-century manuscripts. Obviously we're agreed that said capitalization is not of ancient origin.

and the capitalization standards in 1842 were anything but consistent, even for the same author.

They may not have had the AP handbook and the Chicago Manual of Style, but it's not like capitalization was completely haphazard, either. They did have generally-accepted conventions for capitalization that in their major respects were not unlike our standards today.

Surely, Will, you don't think that the full manuscript title "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt" was translated from the papyrus, do you?

And when the 1842 publication says,

A TRANSLATION

Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

The Book of Abraham.

Do you really think that "Book of Abraham" was set apart in all caps by some editorial accident or printer's error? Or was there perhaps some purpose to this convention, such as an intent to distinguish the document title from the translator's editorializing? What about the following line, where "The Book of Abraham" stands alone? Is this enough to persuade you that this is the document's actual title? Or was this another editorial accident?

-Chris

[Scottie]

That said, the issue of Joseph Smith believing in a hemispheric model for BoM geography is one that is rather easily debunked.

Will, I started a new thread to further discuss this.

[Chris Smith]

For those who are interested, here is further evidence that shows JS to have believed his document to have been an Abraham autograph:

Several visitors to Nauvoo indicated that Joseph Smith identified the handwriting of Abraham on his papyrus. We are told of one visitor, "The attention of the visitor was called by Smith to the mummy clothes and the writing upon them. 'There,' said Smith, 'that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham, and I am the only man that can read it,' which he then proceeded to do!" Another visitor reported, "There, said [the prophet], pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham." (We do have in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, just as the witness suggested, "a particular character" that is interpreted as the name of Abraham.) Josiah Quincy similarly reported, "Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet."

And now the part where Will dismisses these eyewitnesses by rhetorical fiat. So, I'll let him have the last word.

Peace,

-Chris

[John Williams]

Sometimes I wonder if you're being deliberately ironic. But you're just so darn consistent that at the end of the day I have to believe you're sincere...

I wondered the same thing. Your argument was easily understandable, yet Will waves it off as rhetorical fiat. Too funny.

Simply put, for Nibley's argument to stand, one would have to argue that the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" was translated from the original, whereas "found among the catacombs of Egypt" was not. The second phrase, as you rightly stated, makes no sense as part of an original text. That Will chooses to ignore this and focus only on capitalization seems more rhetorical fiat than anything else on this thread.

[krose]

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

I didn't really look at what prompted Ray's remarks (who said what), but I liked what he said, and agreed with it.

[William Schryver]

CS:

But to apply this argument to the BoA is to assume that "written by his own hand" was part of the original document title, and was transferred over to the manuscripts from the papyrus itself.

Of course, this is where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

It doesn't have to be part of the title at all!

Indeed, all it has to be is a more or less faithful rendition of whatever appeared on the record originally written (or commissioned) by Abraham.

Assuming that there was, in fact, an Abraham text on the scroll of Horos, even that text itself need not have contained the phrase in question, since the apologetic argument has consistently argued for the sentiments contained in the report of William West:

These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved ...

William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise Progress and Pretensions of the Mormons (1837), 5.

But again, this is where it is always become easier for the critics to become confirmed reductionists and devout literalists.

[John Williams]

CS:

Of course, this is where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

It doesn't have to be part of the title at all!

Indeed, all it has to be is a more or less faithful rendition of whatever appeared on the record originally written (or commissioned) by Abraham.

Assuming that there was, in fact, an Abraham text on the scroll of Horos, even that text itself need not have contained the phrase in question, since the apologetic argument has consistently argued for the sentiments contained in the report of William West:

But again, this is where it is always become easier for the critics to become confirmed reductionists and devout literalists.

Again, William, who cares? This argument is beside the point, as both Chris and I have repeatedly said. Why you choose to nitpick a ridiculous side issue and then claim that we're being obstinate and reductivist is beyond me.

[William Schryver]

For those who are interested, here is further evidence that shows JS to have believed his document to have been an Abraham autograph:

And now the part where Will dismisses these eyewitnesses by rhetorical fiat. So, I'll let him have the last word.

Peace,

-Chris

[i stand aside for a moment while Chris flails wildly at the straw man ...]

Uh, Chris.

Chris.

Chris!

I know it's hard to pay close attention when this stuff is just flying by so fast; one post piled on top of another. But, just in case you missed it, I'm not making the argument that Joseph Smith didn't believe that he held an actual Abraham holograph in his hands.

Let me repeat, lest there be any confusion from this point forward:

I'm not making the argument that Joseph Smith didn't believe that he held an actual Abraham holograph in his hands.

Although I don't think the conclusion is automatic; and while I have seen some evidence that suggests the contrary, it doesn't bother me in the least if he did, in fact, believe such a thing. In my estimation, the inclusion of the phrase "written by his own hand upon papyrus" serves as a greater indicator of authenticity than if Joseph Smith had NOT believed he was dealing with an Abraham holograph.

.

.

.

You may now resume your rhetoric unimpeded by my interruption. I have places to go and things to do ...

[John Williams]

You may now resume your rhetoric unimpeded by my interruption.

This may be the funniest thing I've read on MADB in years. Thanks, Will.

[William Schryver]

Will, I started a new thread to further discuss this.

I tell you what, Scottie boy: You promise to read Roper's paper to which I provided the link above, and I'll be more than happy to engage this argument.

Of course, if you really read the paper, you'll quickly realize that Matt has already ripped the critics' arguments to pieces when it comes to this topic, and I suspect you'll opt to avoid any such discussion with me.

In any case, those are my conditions, since this is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum, and the perpetually reductionist critics are still convinced, against all logic, reason, and evidence, that it constitutes some kind of devastating blow to Mormonism.

[Vance]

But to apply this argument to the BoA is to assume that "written by his own hand" was part of the original document title, and was transferred over to the manuscripts from the papyrus itself. In other words, it requires that this was a claim the papyrus made for itself rather than one that JS made for it. Yet the manuscripts don't appear to bear out that particular assumption, since the manuscript header in which this phrase appears includes elements that mark it as nineteenth-century editorializing.

Or the critics MUST ASSUME that "written by his own hand" was NOT part of the original document title, and was FABRICATED OUT OF THIN AIR. In other words, it requires that this was NOT a claim the papyrus made for itself and that JS MADE IT UP. AND THEY MUST ASSUME that the fragments we currently have available ARE THE SOURCE OF THE B O A.

Yet the manuscripts don't appear to bear out that last assumption.

[Chris Smith]

I'm not making the argument that Joseph Smith didn't believe that he held an actual Abraham holograph in his hands.

Well, if that's the case, then I commend you for this substantial and welcome change of direction. I guess we're in agreement, then.

Me and William in agreement about something? The devil better turn up the heater before hell freezes over!

(What exactly have we been arguing about, then?)

Peace,

-Chris

[Scottie]

I tell you what, Scottie boy: You promise to read Roper's paper to which I provided the link above, and I'll be more than happy to engage this argument.

Of course, if you really read the paper, you'll quickly realize that Matt has already ripped the critics' arguments to pieces when it comes to this topic, and I suspect you'll opt to avoid any such discussion with me.

In any case, those are my conditions, since this is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum, and the perpetually reductionist critics are still convinced, against all logic, reason, and evidence, that it constitutes some kind of devastating blow to Mormonism.

Fair enough.

I started reading it and, thusfar, the argument that are "ripping the critics to shreds" seem to be "gosh, we can't really say that all these quotes by JS that support a HGT were for certain said as a prophecy".

I remain, as always, underwhelmed. Perhaps that will change after I finish the article. I'll hold my breath.

[Chris Smith]

Or the critics MUST ASSUME that "written by his own hand" was NOT part of the original document title, and was FABRICATED OUT OF THIN AIR. In other words, it requires that this was NOT a claim the papyrus made for itself and that JS MADE IT UP.

Or perhaps that he simply drew an unwarranted inference or arrived at a mistaken conclusion. But yes, it's possible that he made it up, and it's likely that most critics will interpret it that way.

AND THEY MUST ASSUME that the fragments we currently have available ARE THE SOURCE OF THE B O A.

Yet the manuscripts don't appear to bear out that last assumption.

They don't?

[Vance]

So now the subject is being moved from the B O A to the facsimiles?

[John Williams]

So now the subject is being moved from the B O A to the facsimiles?

Huh?

[Lars Umlaut]

So now the subject is being moved from the B O A to the facsimiles?

No. Scroll down through Chris's link.

[William Schryver]

Fair enough.

I started reading it and, thusfar, the argument that are "ripping the critics to shreds" seem to be "gosh, we can't really say that all these quotes by JS that support a HGT were for certain said as a prophecy".

I remain, as always, underwhelmed. Perhaps that will change after I finish the article. I'll hold my breath.

I really am leaving shortly, but I'd like to take the time to plant one little question in your mind as you continue reading Matt's fine article: if the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith's views of the geography of the Book of Mormon were tending to evolve over time, and if his followers, after his death, continue to demonstrate that trend, do you suppose that fact would militate against the notion that neither he (Joseph Smith) nor his followers believed that he had made definitive, prophetic conclusions concerning the question?

Carry on.

[William Schryver]

No. Scroll down through Chris's link.

Mathie, to his credit, does a good job of summarizing the Ashment thesis that has become the critics stock argument against the Book of Abraham.

It remains to be seen whether or not Ashment's interpretation of what he observed in KEPA #2 and #3 bears scrutiny in the light of competent textual criticism.

.

.

.

Hint: it doesn't.

That much will become apparent as time moves on. But, for a few more months, I have no doubt it will remain a treasured argument in the hands of the critics. Their affection for it will die hard. But it will, eventually, die. Not that they'll go home alone, by any means. If one thing can be said about the critics of Mormonism, it's that there are always new arguments waiting in the wings when their old favorite ones fall out of fashion.

Critics of Mormonism are much like Hugh Hefner in that respect. They're going to hell in the end, of course, but in the meantime it can often seem as though they've got everything going their way.

[Vance]

I did scroll down, just not far enough.

So having characters from the BoB in the left hand margin of the BOA manuscript is supposed to be "proof positive" that it was the source of the BOA? Even though the text on the right is not related to the character on the left? Have I got it right?

First the critics argue that the BoB is the source of BOA and then they argue that it isn't. And this, with no cognitive dissonance!

[John Williams]

I did scroll down, just not far enough.

So having characters from the BoB in the left hand margin of the BOA manuscript is supposed to be "proof positive" that it was the source of the BOA? Even though the text on the right is not related to the character on the left? Have I got it right?

First the critics argue that the BoB is the source of BOA and then they argue that it isn't. And this, with no cognitive dissonance!

To borrow from the Big Lebowski: You're out of your element.

[structurecop]

Critics of Mormonism are much like Hugh Hefner in that respect. They're going to hell in the end, of course, but in the meantime it can often seem as though they've got everything going their way.

Ah, what sharp witticism, ol' chap! Will wins it with the "going to hell" threat!

[Nomad]

I wondered the same thing. Your argument was easily understandable, yet Will waves it off as rhetorical fiat. Too funny.

Simply put, for Nibley's argument to stand, one would have to argue that the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" was translated from the original, whereas "found among the catacombs of Egypt" was not. The second phrase, as you rightly stated, makes no sense as part of an original text. That Will chooses to ignore this and focus only on capitalization seems more rhetorical fiat than anything else on this thread.

In the first place, Smith didn't even present an argument. He simply made an assertion.

As for your second paragraph, it is, quite simply, logically deficient, and practically nonsensical. It's apparent that neither you nor Mr. Smith are capable of appreciating the import of the William West statement that William cited, nor the import of Nibley's argument cited by Rommelator in the original post. William is correct in his observation (one I have made myself) that critics of Mormonismâ??for whatever reasonâ??have an unusual tendency towards reductionist thinking. I haven't given much thought to the causal relationships of that fact, but perhaps I will, and then comment on it at a future date.

As for this entire issue of "written by his own hand upon papyrus," I have long considered it a transparent canard. I believe it has little, if any, negative effect on believing Latter-day Saints, and is only a comfort to former believers who are constantly on the lookout to collect "good reasons" to satisfy their endless need of justifications for their apostasy.

[Nomad]

To borrow from the Big Lebowski: You're out of your element.

Said the pot to the kettle.

And I'm not so sure about Vance. I've seen nothing yet that would lead me to believe he is ignorant of the basic issues. On the other hand, I've never yet, in over three years of casual lurking, marked you as being informed to any appreciable degree when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy.