Jump to content

Who originated the Missing Papyrus Theory?


Mortal Man

Recommended Posts

Ten points to whoever can identify the person quoted below.

"You mean the size of the original scrolls? Well, I am not sure. They could have been quite long. How long? Perhaps fifteen feet; scrolls like these are even longer in some cases. They vary in length and as you can see, these are small fragments of rather long documents."

Link to comment

Ten points to whoever can identify the person quoted below.

"You mean the size of the original scrolls? Well, I am not sure. They could have been quite long. How long? Perhaps fifteen feet; scrolls like these are even longer in some cases. They vary in length and as you can see, these are small fragments of rather long documents."

Dr. Fischer.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V02N04_57.pdf

Link to comment

I don't know anything about your quote, but I do know that I originated the missing scroll theory. I'm sure I was not the only one, but comparing the data available information on the scrolls Joseph had in his possession and the fragments recovered from the museum and subsequently published in the Ensign, it was more than obvious that there was far more missing than there was extant in 1967.

I am not claiming I was the first to notice the anomaly, and certainly not the only one, but since I could do it, it is a mystery how anyone could cling to some we-have-the-papyrus-Joseph-used-to-translate-the-Book-of-Abraham theory. There is virtually nothing that supports it.

The fact that we are missing two of the three facsimiles is evidence enough that what we have is not what Joseph had. (It may even be, and is, as far as I am concerned, that the one facsimile we do have is not the one Joseph translated, either, but that's another story entirely.)

The lengths do not match. The descriptions do not match. The scrolls with the mummies were not the only papyri in Lobolo's find. There were small squares, as well.

Later, Joseph had some of these (at least that what I assume, based on their size and descriptions) framed.

It seems more than odd that he'd cut up the scrolls that contained the Books of Abraham and of Joseph (which is missing in papyri and translated forms), sacred scripture, for what? a souvenir?

I believe that Hedlock used (specifically Joseph gave him) similar vignettes to make his facsimiles. There were almost certainly many to choose from, and they used the ones most like the originals Abraham pointed to (but which were not immediately adjacent to the text describing or mentioning them; Abraham tell us that the image was at the beginning of the record, not the phrase you'd expect to see if it was nearby).

So, while I originated the missing Papyrus theory, I and hundreds of others, it's based on all of the available information, and it fits those data better than anything else I've ever seen.

Lehi

Link to comment

I originated the missing scroll theory.

When?

comparing the data available information on the scrolls Joseph had in his possession and the fragments recovered from the museum and subsequently published in the Ensign, it was more than obvious that there was far more missing than there was extant in 1967.

What "available information on the scrolls" are you referring to?

(It may even be, and is, as far as I am concerned, that the one facsimile we do have is not the one Joseph translated, either, but that's another story entirely.)

I'd be interested in hearing this other story.

The lengths do not match.

What lengths are you referring to and what don't they match?

The descriptions do not match.

Whose descriptions of what?

The scrolls with the mummies were not the only papyri in Lobolo's find. There were small squares, as well.

Did these make it to Kirtland?

Later, Joseph had some of these (at least that what I assume, based on their size and descriptions) framed.

Are you saying that none of these framed pieces are extant?

I believe that Hedlock used (specifically Joseph gave him) similar vignettes to make his facsimiles. There were almost certainly many to choose from, and they used the ones most like the originals Abraham pointed to (but which were not immediately adjacent to the text describing or mentioning them; Abraham tell us that the image was at the beginning of the record, not the phrase you'd expect to see if it was nearby).

What did Abraham mean by "record"? A scroll? Are you saying that Joseph gave Hedlock Facsimile 1 because it was similar to the one on Abraham's (missing) scroll and he didn't want to damage the more valuable record?

So, while I originated the missing Papyrus theory

Did you publish your theory or write it down anywhere?

Link to comment
I originated the missing scroll theory. I'm sure I was not the only one,

...

I am not claiming I was the first to notice the anomaly, and certainly not the only one, but since I could do it, it is a mystery how anyone could cling to some we-have-the-papyrus-Joseph-used-to-translate-the-Book-of-Abraham theory. There is virtually nothing that supports it.

When?

In about 1969~70, after I returned from my mission in France and Switzerland, and after I read the Ensign article and a book by James R. Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, originally published in 1955. My current copy is from the 12th printing in 1973 (my first copy burned along with our house in 1985).

Did you publish your theory or write it down anywhere?

I doubt it. It was for my own purposes, and I had no reason to publish it after I satisfied my concerns.

However, in the interim, I have written and published it several times, once in this forum, as I recall, three or four years ago, and on various sites, like the old a.r.m, and s.r.m and the now-defunct Yahoo! LDS forum.

You will recall the second paragraph I pasted back in from my original message where I explicitly stated I was not the first, and in the first 'graf above where I implied the same, and then said I was not the only one. My point was that the evidence is overwhelming that the find in the museum in New York was not the same as the purchase from Chandler; that I arrived at this conclusion independently based on the data before me. And, as I said earlier, since to was obvious to me (and countless others), it is a mystery how anyone can reasonably maintain that what we now have is the source material for the Book of Abraham.

... comparing the data available information on the scrolls Joseph had in his possession and the fragments recovered from the museum and subsequently published in the Ensign, it was more than obvious that there was far more missing than there was extant in 1967.
When?What "available information on the scrolls" are you referring to?

There's far too much to cite it all here, but it is readily available. The Clark book I noted above, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, was the source I got my information from. Others, Kerry Shirts among them, have even more.

The lengths do not match.
What lengths are you referring to and what don't they match?

We have now twelve fragments of papyrus which could fit on an average size office desk. There are many accounts of two (or more) rolls of papyrus that were far too large to fit on a desk, and accounts of having to weight them down so the prophet could examine them. In addition, as I noted before, we obviously do not have either of the other two facsimiles, so they must be missing.

Others have also recorded things on the scrolls we do not have. For instance

Madame Smith ... turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a
long roll of manuscript
, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament-and it might have been for anything we knew-but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who-the serpent, I mean-was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

"They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence.

Josiah Qunicy also spoke of this image:

The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and
a serpent walking upon a pair of legs
. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion. "Why, that's as plain as a pikestaff," was the rejoinder. "Before the Fall snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man."

Have you ever seen, among the twelve fragments, a picture of Eve and the walking serpent? I have not.

I can't find right now, but I recall reading that one of the scrolls lay on a table and the end of it was many feet away, having rolled down a hallway.

Nothing in the descriptions I have read by contemporaries (both Saint and outside the Church) makes the papyri anything less than a few dozen times the current scraps.

The descriptions do not match.
Whose descriptions of what?

One of the most important is that of a "Dr. J. [John] R. Riggs" who is cited in The Academic Review of the Brigham Young Academy (one of the Church's Stake Academies to which all LDS families were counseled to send their children) of Mar, 1885. In the article, we read:

Dr. J.R. Riggs of this city [Provo?], who personally examined the papers [
sic
], describes them as about 6x8 inches in size, and slightly over an inch think. The leaves were gummed together at the edges, but became readily separable by heat. A few leaves, opened by Mr. Chandler for exhibition were shown to Prof. Anthon of New York and Dr. Mitchell of Philadelphia, each of whom commenced a translation.
The characters were written in
three colors
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...