Book of Abraham Apologetics

[Rob Bowman]

Ed,

Vance's post was directed at me, not you. It is yet another in a steady stream of posts from him trying to provoke me. Somehow, if any of the dozens of Mormons participating on this forum gets the last word in a discussion to which I was often the only evangelical participant, Vance claims that this proves I "have no answer." In this instance, the thread has been closed, so I cannot continue that particular thread.

I guess I don't know what you are trying to get at. Please elaborate. If this is about something that I said that is somehow against some policy, please elaborate so I can correct it and not say it again, because it seems like you got cut off at the end of this thread you point out.

Ed

[Rob Bowman]

Ed,

Fascinating. What a different Mormonism you embrace than someone like Robert Millet:

"The historicity of the Book of Mormon record is crucial. We cannot exercise faith in that which is untrue, nor can "doctrinal fiction" have normative value in our lives. Too often the undergirding assumption of those who cast doubt on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in whole or in part, is a denial of the supernatural and a refusal to admit of revelation and predictive prophecy."

Because there are a great many Mormons who believe in core doctrines who do not find historicity to be core to their faith. I am not one of those, because I believe in historicity. But it is not at the core of my faith in Mormonism. Things like a big 3 in 1 blob impossiblity that are rejected by rationalists such as Dawkins are at the core of my faith. I will not grant that a God is God that is not rational, that did not arise out of a rational process of development. In other words, just as Dawkins, I don't believe in supernatural Gods. So if I wasn't a Mormon, I'd be an atheist. For me, it is the one or the other, not some other shade of Christianity or Buddhism or some nonsense with supernatural claims. Thus, the handle "SkepticTheist" that I use, as you can see. Because I'm a skeptic of your claims not on theological grounds necessarily, but on rationalist grounds.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Rob, Pardon my recalcitrance, but I'm not going to allow your attempt to bludgeon me with your proof-texting of some dude that isn't even a general authority.

If you care so much for GA's as the source of your authority on what is and is not Mormonism, you should keep consistent, as I just thought they were your source of authoritative Mormonism.

In other words, many people have many different Mormonisms but make the same covenants with God and worship at the same altars.

You cannot hold what Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson ever said over my head and expect me to bow down to your definitions of anything.

As much as there is many different traditions of Christianity, there are a great many Mormonisms within this tradition that all acknowledge the same authority of the same priesthood. And by that I mean, there are a great many beliefs on a great many things.

As for me, my Mormonism is my temple covenants and my rationality, and whatever fits in nicely with both of those, and whatever else God chooses to reveal to me personally.

I am not put in some strait jacket that you choose to fashion for me after some image you have in your own mind as to what you think Mormonism should be.

The reason you can't grasp it is because it eludes you every time you try to nail it down, because it is defined by the experience of he who experiences it in communion with Jesus Christ at the alters of the temple and at the table of the sacrament. You have your own experiences with Jesus Christ no doubt, in your own preparation for further light and knowledge. I hope that when the time comes whether in this life or the next that God reveals his entire truth to you, that you accept it.

As for me and my house, we will choose our elusive Mormonism that you cannot pin down using your proof texts. Now I have to go to the temple right now, as I'm a temple worker. So I have no more time to waste on this conversation.

Thanks.

Ed Goble

Ed,

Fascinating. What a different Mormonism you embrace than someone like Robert Millet:

"The historicity of the Book of Mormon record is crucial. We cannot exercise faith in that which is untrue, nor can "doctrinal fiction" have normative value in our lives. Too often the undergirding assumption of those who cast doubt on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in whole or in part, is a denial of the supernatural and a refusal to admit of revelation and predictive prophecy."

[SkepticTheist]

Oh hey Rob, in case you didn't notice, or in case I didn't make it clear, I'm absolutely an advocate for historicity of the BOM and the BOA, much more so than many people.

I am not only advocating historicity for the BOA. I am an advocate for the way Chris Smith believes, that there is no missing papyrus. But I go farther. I'm an advocate that the Sensen Papyrus is the Egyptian original for the Book of Abraham, and Egyptologists and the like haven't translated its core, dual meaning. And I will publish my book sometime that I have been writing on this very subject.

Ed Goble

Ed,

Fascinating. What a different Mormonism you embrace than someone like Robert Millet:

"The historicity of the Book of Mormon record is crucial. We cannot exercise faith in that which is untrue, nor can "doctrinal fiction" have normative value in our lives. Too often the undergirding assumption of those who cast doubt on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in whole or in part, is a denial of the supernatural and a refusal to admit of revelation and predictive prophecy."

[Monster]

Is "providing answers to specific questions" a definition of leadership? Not in my dictionary!

Then we wil have to disagree. Answering questions is vital to leadership IMHO.

[Chris Smith]

That's not what I said. However, once the scholars in question know they are dealing with the Book of Abraham, and that it is believed by Mormons (ugh!) to be scripture, we no longer have a blind test; and we can expect their prejudices -- so carefully cultivated over recent years -- to determine the outcome.

Is it in the nature of blind tests that we study only the variable most likely to return a pleasing result?

[Monster]

However, anyone can get the same answer that the General Authorities can get via the prayer route. Good people are entitled to the answers via the Holy Ghost just as well as much as the General Authorities. They are not responsible the testimonies of the individual members of the church.

Glenn

What tif the answer to sincere prayer and study is contrary to the accepted theology of the BOA. Will all LDS members accept it as valid?

[trim]

What tif the answer to sincere prayer and study is contrary to the accepted theology of the BOA. Will all LDS members accept it as valid?

I suppose all LDS members would accept it as enthusiastically as you accept the answers to their prayers regarding the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps you missed the point prayer provides only personal answers. I have been reminded on numerous occasions that answers to my personal prayers don't qualify as evidence (at least not shareable evidence). I could arrange to have some nice young men in suits come give a you refresher on this topic.

[Pahoran]

Is it in the nature of blind tests that we study only the variable most likely to return a pleasing result?

No. But it is the nature of blind tests that we remove identifying marks from the bottle of fruit juice.

But nonetheless, I thank you for your "startlingly frank admission" that comparing the Book of Abraham to other authentically ancient extra-biblical Abraham material is "most likely to return a pleasing result."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

But nonetheless, I thank you for your "startlingly frank admission" that comparing the Book of Abraham to other authentically ancient extra-biblical Abraham material is "most likely to return a pleasing result."

Yes, affinities to certain legendary materials do exist. But considering that such materials are apocryphal and tend to share common sources with the Book of Abraham in Josephus and the Bible, I don't consider the affinities to be particularly meaningful. Certainly not the first variable I would measure, if I were constructing a test of the BoA's authenticity. (But I guess when life gives you lemons, you have to make what you can of them.)

[Glenn101]

What tif the answer to sincere prayer and study is contrary to the accepted theology of the BOA. Will all LDS members accept it as valid?

That would be the person's responsibility if it is indeed an answer. However, I am not obligated to accept it as I have had my baptism of fire and feel I am on solid ground spiritually with the answers I have received.

Glenn

[Vance]

Ed,

Vance's post was directed at me, not you. It is yet another in a steady stream of posts from him trying to provoke me.

More like I am trying to provoke an answer/admission from you.

Somehow, if any of the dozens of Mormons participating on this forum gets the last word in a discussion to which I was often the only evangelical participant, . . .

No one forces you to participate in any particular thread. You are free to flee a thread anytime you desire.

Vance claims that this proves I "have no answer."

Well, I have claimed that at particular times in particular threads that you have fled. But it isn't a general claim. You are always free to return to those particular threads and "prove" me wrong.

In this instance, the thread has been closed, so I cannot continue that particular thread.

Well, I suppose any excuse will do in a pinch.

[T-Shirt]

More like I am trying to provoke an answer/admission from you.

No one forces you to participate in any particular thread. You are free to flee a thread anytime you desire.

Well, I have claimed that at particular times in particular threads that you have fled. But it isn't a general claim. You are always free to return to those particular threads and "prove" me wrong.

Well, I suppose any excuse will do in a pinch.

At the risk of being labeled a "Board Nanny" I feel a need to interject some thoughts. Vance, I think Rob has adequately shown that he is anything but the typical Evangelical Anti-mormon. His contributions here are, generally, well thought out, articulate and informative. I, for one, appreciate his participation on the board, even though I disagree with him on many things. As I am sure that he, like most of us, has a life outside of this message board, I don't understand why you continually poke him like a little kid poking his brother in the head just to be obnoxious. Rob does not seem to be one who runs from a debate. Some of your jabs tend to be so immature, I can understand why he doesn't always respond to them, I am surprised he hasn't put you on ignore. You seem like a bright guy, I think you could be a little more respectful and make a greater contribution to the board. Theologically, I am on your side, but I don't think your methods are productive.

If I have broken any board rules with this post, I have no problem with it being deleted by the mods.

Best,

T-Shirt

[Skylla]

Vance: Your behavior towards Rob Bowman needs to stop. We don't have a rule against discussing church criticisms here.

Skylla

[Calm]

Yes, affinities to certain legendary materials do exist. But considering that such materials are apocryphal and tend to share common sources with the Book of Abraham in Josephus and the Bible, I don't consider the affinities to be particularly meaningful.

Have you read Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham by any chance?

[Chris Smith]

Have you read Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham by any chance?

Yes.

[keithb]

It's interesting that the GAs, when talking about the book of Abraham, rarely ever speak about its provenance, therefore not asking the membership of the Church to believe it came from Egyptian papyri. They simply quote from it when teaching simple doctrines.

Conversely, critical discussions about the BoA on this board almost never criticise the doctrine contained in the book, but are nearly exclusively focused on its authenticity. Does the authenticity matter if the content is true? Is authenticity the only litmus test of truth?

If JS just made up the BoA out of thin air, then fine -- lets just admit that and be done with it. If I'm reading your quote right, this is basically what you're proposing that we do. I agree with you that the objective worth of its content -- the faith that it inspires, the positive effect that it has on the lives of the people who read it -- have little to do with whether it was actually an account written by the hand of Abraham or something JS invented to be faith promoting. However . . .

If JS made up the BoA, why not the BoM? the First Vision? the entire "restoration" of the church?

[Robert F. Smith]

Why would the wife take the ring to jewelers who had never seen a diamond before?

If this is the kind of story that must be created as an analogy, then the situation with the Book of Abraham is worse than I thought.

Pedro may have had in mind something like the parable told by Hugh Nibley at the close of chapter 6 in his Lehi in the Desert over half-a-century ago: Do you recall the one about a young man who found a diamond, and the sensible response by a jeweler named Snite to the consequent hullaballoo? Here it is,

A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.

Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.

The moral of this story is that the testimony brought out by the prosecution, however learned, has been to date entirely irrelevant and immaterial. It is hardly necessary to observe that it is also incompetent, since it is highly argumentative and based entirely on conclusions of the witnesses, who have furthermore already made up their minds, on other grounds, that the accused is guilty.

Since the real issues often get lost in the midst of trenchant attacks and defenses, it is sometimes helpful to stop and calmly reflect on the nature of evidence and logic. It is also helpful not to push the meaning of a parable too far. Otherwise no one, including Jesus, would be safe from partisan and mean-spirited criticism. All of us on this Board can actually learn something and make some progress in our dialogues -- provided we are humble enough to listen and learn from each other.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ask any non-LDS scholar who studies Old Testament history and literature, ancient Egyptology, or any plausibly related field of scholarship, whether they consider it plausible that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text written by the patriarch Abraham. Even stipulating that the text of the BOA might have been written on a part of the JSP that is no longer extant, the answer will be no.

I realize that a certain contingent of LDS apologists thinks that if they can mount a case for the hypothetical possibility that the BOA might have been written on the lost portions of the JSP they have demolished the case against its authenticity. However, that is simply not the reality.

I'm sorry that I cannot elaborate at the moment, but I assure you that I take this subject very seriously.

It seems to me that most of what has been bandied about on this thread so far is a bit confused about what the issues really are, and whether it is really likely that the suggested approaches would bear fruit either pro or con.

Over forty years ago I decided to take a sustained and careful look at the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. The Joseph Smith Papyri had just come out, and several professional Egyptologists had accepted an invitation to translate them and to comment on some of the issues involved. They were very gentlemanly and restrained in their approach and I appreciated that very much. One of them, Klaus Baer, even came to BYU several times and delivered lectures and answered questions quite freely. Hugh Nibley (who had studied Egyptian under Baer at UC Berkeley and at the Univ. of Chicago) normally introduced him, and it was obvious that they were good friends. Nibley's commentary on the Book of Abraham was always interesting and broadly based, but he used to tell me that he was merely "clowning around" until some real scholars came along. Nibley was actually very serious in addressing the Book of Abraham, and whatever clowning he did was intended only for brief comic relief from a very humble man who just happened to be a genius.

In the midst of the initial excitement I thought that it might be a good idea to subject the Book of Abraham to the most basic tests of authenticity. The same sort of tests used by biblical scholars to determine the date and authorship of texts.

I employed tests of higher and lower criticism, including a full analysis based on the documentary hypothesis, along with linguistic and textual studies of variant readings, a structural/rhetorical analysis, astronomical analysis, correlation with parallel biblical materials, and a detailed analysis of the hypocephalus (facsimile 2) in straightforward Egyptological terms. I reasoned that, if Joseph Smith had produced explanations or interpretations of the items in the registers of that hypocephalus which were in accord with standard Egyptology, then that would provide a strong case for the authenticity of the Book. With some noteworthy exceptions, I ignored the medieval traditions of the Jews and Muslims, even though they are frequently very interesting and useful. There is simply too much material for any one human to encompass.

I hope to publish my analysis and conclusions in a massive Book of Abraham Commentary (much expanded beyond those initials forays) later this year. Meantime, what I have found is that Joseph Smith did an excellent job of passing on to us in English what I consider to be an authentic text transmitted to us by the Jewish community resident in Egypt during the Graeco-Roman period.

[SkepticTheist]

I employed tests of higher and lower criticism, including a full analysis based on the documentary hypothesis, along with linguistic and textual studies of variant readings, a structural/rhetorical analysis, astronomical analysis, correlation with parallel biblical materials, and a detailed analysis of the hypocephalus (facsimile 2) in straightforward Egyptological terms. I reasoned that, if Joseph Smith had produced explanations or interpretations of the items in the registers of that hypocephalus which were in accord with standard Egyptology, then that would provide a strong case for the authenticity of the Book. With some noteworthy exceptions, I ignored the medieval traditions of the Jews and Muslims, even though they are frequently very interesting and useful. There is simply too much material for any one human to encompass.

I hope to publish my analysis and conclusions in a massive Book of Abraham Commentary (much expanded beyond those initials forays) later this year. Meantime, what I have found is that Joseph Smith did an excellent job of passing on to us in English what I consider to be an authentic text transmitted to us by the Jewish community resident in Egypt during the Graeco-Roman period.

Since you have come to the conclusion that it is a text from a Jewish Community in the Greco-Roman period, and it is well recognized that the major languages at the time in the area that would have been used by such Jews are (1) Egyptian, (2) Greek, and (3) Hebrew, and these types of people were syncretic, then what is so preposterous that the Sensen contains a deliberate construct containing a secondary level of exegesis represented by the English Book of Abraham Text? Especially when the translations in the KEP contain translations of Egyptian hieroglyphic/hieratic ideograms that are represented by both Greek and Hebrew and Egyptian root words, using Etymological substitution that are consistent with the root meanings of the ideograms themselves. Huge word-plays and linguistic devices using three separate languages represented by those ideograms. The Jews in the magical syncretic era of Egypt were so into the use of magical papyri for games and hermeneutics such as this. Why is it so preposterous that the idea of a second level of interpretation intimately tied to the Book of Breathings cannot result, taking the obvious nature of the KEP as a clue as to what that literary device should be to crack the code? Not a super-cryptogram. Just a literary device between three separate languages? I say it isn't preposterous at all, and while I'm only getting started, I already have a huge amount of consistent results based on these core assumptions, that we should actually take the KEP seriously as a clue to the literary device at hand rather than assuming its a modern cipher.

Ed Goble

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

In the midst of the initial excitement I thought that it might be a good idea to subject the Book of Abraham to the most basic tests of authenticity. The same sort of tests used by biblical scholars to determine the date and authorship of texts.

I employed tests of higher and lower criticism, including a full analysis based on the documentary hypothesis, along with linguistic and textual studies of variant readings, a structural/rhetorical analysis, astronomical analysis, correlation with parallel biblical materials, and a detailed analysis of the hypocephalus (facsimile 2) in straightforward Egyptological terms. I reasoned that, if Joseph Smith had produced explanations or interpretations of the items in the registers of that hypocephalus which were in accord with standard Egyptology, then that would provide a strong case for the authenticity of the Book. With some noteworthy exceptions, I ignored the medieval traditions of the Jews and Muslims, even though they are frequently very interesting and useful. There is simply too much material for any one human to encompass.

I hope to publish my analysis and conclusions in a massive Book of Abraham Commentary (much expanded beyond those initials forays) later this year. Meantime, what I have found is that Joseph Smith did an excellent job of passing on to us in English what I consider to be an authentic text transmitted to us by the Jewish community resident in Egypt during the Graeco-Roman period.

I look forward to seeing it. But you have an insuperable problem if you are really going to adopt "the most basic tests of authenticity" comparable to those used by biblical scholars. This problem is sort of the literary equivalent of the legal principle of corpus delicti: you don't have a body (i.e., a text). What you have is a nineteenth-century English writing that purports to be a translation of a four-thousand-year-old Egyptian text. This is rather like a detective being asked to take seriously the claim that a man has been killed on the strength of the evidence of a pencil sketch of the man's supposedly dead body drawn six years after the alleged murder took place.

You mention some "initial forays" on the subject of the BOA. I have seen references to a couple of things you apparently wrote on the subject, but they appear to be unpublished and I cannot seem to find them on the Web. Could you point me in the right direction?

[Robert F. Smith]

Since you have come to the conclusion that it is a text from a Jewish Community in the Greco-Roman period, and it is well recognized that the major languages at the time in the area that would have been used by such Jews are (1) Egyptian, (2) Greek, and (3) Hebrew, and these types of people were syncretic, then what is so preposterous that the Sensen contains a deliberate construct containing a secondary level of exegesis represented by the English Book of Abraham Text? Especially when the translations in the KEP contain translations of Egyptian hieroglyphic/hieratic ideograms that are represented by both Greek and Hebrew and Egyptian root words, using Etymological substitution that are consistent with the root meanings of the ideograms themselves. Huge word-plays and linguistic devices using three separate languages represented by those ideograms. The Jews in the magical syncretic era of Egypt were so into the use of magical papyri for games and hermeneutics such as this. Why is it so preposterous that the idea of a second level of interpretation intimately tied to the Book of Breathings cannot result, taking the obvious nature of the KEP as a clue as to what that literary device should be to crack the code? Not a super-cryptogram. Just a literary device between three separate languages? I say it isn't preposterous at all, and while I'm only getting started, I already have a huge amount of consistent results based on these core assumptions, that we should actually take the KEP seriously as a clue to the literary device at hand rather than assuming its a modern cipher.

Ed Goble

Although I do not adhere to it, I am familiar with the theory (first propounded over 40 years ago) that the Snsn papyrus (Book of Breathings) was employed as a cue-word list or mnemonic device based on ancient Egyptian cryptographic techniques (which did exist), or via etymological substitution, word-play, etc. I don't think KEP support that theory, but am willing to hear arguments based on such a theory, and I wish you well in such an endeavor.

However, I prefer to believe that the actual text of the Book of Abraham is not among currently available papyri, or is on the no longer available back of the Snsn papyrus (the glued backing makes it impossible to check). We know that many old texts were recopied on later papyri, and that extensive editing and updating took place. This was true of ancient Egyptian texts just as it was of biblical texts.

[Robert F. Smith]

I look forward to seeing it. But you have an insuperable problem if you are really going to adopt "the most basic tests of authenticity" comparable to those used by biblical scholars. This problem is sort of the literary equivalent of the legal principle of corpus delicti: you don't have a body (i.e., a text). What you have is a nineteenth-century English writing that purports to be a translation of a four-thousand-year-old Egyptian text. This is rather like a detective being asked to take seriously the claim that a man has been killed on the strength of the evidence of a pencil sketch of the man's supposedly dead body drawn six years after the alleged murder took place.

You mention some "initial forays" on the subject of the BOA. I have seen references to a couple of things you apparently wrote on the subject, but they appear to be unpublished and I cannot seem to find them on the Web. Could you point me in the right direction?

I don't know about "an insuperable problem," Rob, since the types of analysis I have done are employed daily by biblical scholars. Moreover, since the principle of corpus delicti means "the body of a crime," rather than a physical body or corpse, it is useful to deal with the actual evidence available and to process it (I have a certificate in CSI from CalState Univ. Long Beach). A corpse is actually not needed for a murder investigation and prosecution, and many convictions have been obtained on circumstantial evidence alone.

However, we do have the facsimiles -- which all Egyptologists consider authentic artifacts from ancient Egypt, even if they assign them to pagan, non-Jewish contexts. In 1975, I privately circulated my detailed analysis of Book of Abraham facsimile 2. The Mormon and anti-Mormon recipients of that study had nothing to say in response, for whatever reason. I have not published in that area at all. Just haven't had the time till now. And when I do, perhaps it will go over like a lead balloon.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

Biblical scholars examine biblical texts, and we have extant multiple ancient manuscripts of those biblical texts in their original languages. None such exists in the case of the BOA text, although it is true that we do have the first and third facsimiles and copies of the second (although the first and second facsimiles have lacunae).

While murder investigations and prosecutions sometimes go forward without a corpse, the corpse is the usual, easiest, and most definitive proof that a person has died. Lacking a corpse, it is sometimes possible to mount a case from circumstantial evidence alone, but that evidence has to be awfully good. I used corpus delicti merely as an analogy to illustrate the point that biblical scholars generally don't take seriously purported ancient documents without a text and a "paper trail" or evidence of provenance sufficient to establish that the text really is an ancient writing. Consider, for example, the caution (at best) with which biblical scholars view the Secret Gospel of Mark. No copy of the book itself exists; at present what are extant are photographs of an eighteenth-century handwritten copy of a letter attributed to the third-century writer Clement of Alexandria quoting from this otherwise unknown Secret Gospel of Mark, discovered by Morton Smith in the twentieth century. And that is assuming Morton Smith didn't concoct the whole thing as a forgery! It's very difficult to justify taking a work seriously with that kind of documentary evidence. Yet the documentary evidence for the Secret Gospel of Mark is a hundred times better than the documentary evidence for the text of the Book of Abraham (though as you say, we do have the facsimiles to consider).

I don't know about "an insuperable problem," Rob, since the types of analysis I have done are employed daily by biblical scholars. Moreover, since the principle of corpus delicti means "the body of a crime," rather than a physical body or corpse, it is useful to deal with the actual evidence available and to process it (I have a certificate in CSI from CalState Univ. Long Beach). A corpse is actually not needed for a murder investigation and prosecution, and many convictions have been obtained on circumstantial evidence alone.

However, we do have the facsimiles -- which all Egyptologists consider authentic artifacts from ancient Egypt, even if they assign them to pagan, non-Jewish contexts. In 1975, I privately circulated my detailed analysis of Book of Abraham facsimile 2. The Mormon and anti-Mormon recipients of that study had nothing to say in response, for whatever reason. I have not published in that area at all. Just haven't had the time till now. And when I do, perhaps it will go over like a lead balloon.

[SkepticTheist]

Although I do not adhere to it, I am familiar with the theory (first propounded over 40 years ago) that the Snsn papyrus (Book of Breathings) was employed as a cue-word list or mnemonic device based on ancient Egyptian cryptographic techniques (which did exist), or via etymological substitution, word-play, etc. I don't think KEP support that theory, but am willing to hear arguments based on such a theory, and I wish you well in such an endeavor.

However, I prefer to believe that the actual text of the Book of Abraham is not among currently available papyri, or is on the no longer available back of the Snsn papyrus (the glued backing makes it impossible to check). We know that many old texts were recopied on later papyri, and that extensive editing and updating took place. This was true of ancient Egyptian texts just as it was of biblical texts.

No, actually, the super cryptogram theory utterly ignored the KEP as the key that puts forth the literary device at hand, and focused entirely on root meanings. And there was no etymological substitution, only some hope that somehow the root meaning would "show up" in the theme of a paragraph. If you think my theory is equivalent to that, perhaps I have not explained clearly enough. Perhaps I should not try anyway until the thing is fully developed. And this is not about me worrying about edits or redactions that have taken place, because this is only about demonstrating that some of the core text from the book of Abraham is represented by the Sensen Papyrus, not that I think Joseph Smith translated the whole contents from it. He only needed to get to a certain point before revelation entirely took over and delivered the text to him, the way I see it. I am not proposing that the entire Book of Abraham text is contained on the Papyrus, or that the entire text is represented by the ideograms on the Papyrus. So to me it is partially similar to the catalyst theory, and partially a literal thing where some of the text, probably a relatively small portion, actually does reside in the Sensen Papyrus.

Ed Goble