Book of Abraham Apologetics

[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

[Mortal Man]

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.

I'd be very interested in an article detailing your observations and personal interactions with Nibley and Baer.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Ed,

I'd be happy to send to you my bibliography on Egyptian cryptography, if you like. I'd like to see what you come up with. Just send me a message with your email.

[cinepro]

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.

But how is that story in any way related to the Book of Mormon? In that story, the prime physical evidence is "put on display" for everyone, skeptic and believer alike to examine. Obviously, the primary physical evidence for the Book of Mormon is the plates, and we know how that went.

To make the story at all analogous to the situation with the Book of Mormon, the farmer boy would instead need to lose the diamond-like object after showing to a few non-gemologist friends who then attest that he did, indeed, have something that looked like a diamond. Then, he would describe the situation in detail, and people would have to decide for themselves whether or not to believe the story (and dedicate their subsequent lives and 10% of their increase) based on the boy's description of the find and the statements of his non-gemologist friends and whether or not they have strong spiritual feelings when they hear the story.

Because honestly, if I were to find that "parable" convincing, I would probably own as much stock in this endeavor as possible.

Again, if it is considered a good argument or example to create a story that diverges from the actual scenario in very real and important points, it doesn't indicate a good level of understanding and/or faith on the part of the parabler.

[Pahoran]

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.)

I suppose so. Your technique appears to be, when life gives you lemons, insist that they can't possibly be real lemons because some bits of paper that came with them include notes that aren't compatible with modern practices of citrus culture.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

To make the story at all analogous to the situation with the Book of Mormon, the farmer boy would instead need to lose the diamond-like object after showing to a few non-gemologist friends who then attest that he did, indeed, have something that looked like a diamond. Then, he would describe the situation in detail, and people would have to decide for themselves whether or not to believe the story (and dedicate their subsequent lives and 10% of their increase) based on the boy's description of the find and the statements of his non-gemologist friends and whether or not they have strong spiritual feelings when they hear the story.

The BoA may not be a diamond but it still has

.

[Robert F. Smith]

But how is that story in any way related to the Book of Mormon? In that story, the prime physical evidence is "put on display" for everyone, skeptic and believer alike to examine. Obviously, the primary physical evidence for the Book of Mormon is the plates, and we know how that went.

To make the story at all analogous to the situation with the Book of Mormon, the farmer boy would instead need to lose the diamond-like object after showing to a few non-gemologist friends who then attest that he did, indeed, have something that looked like a diamond. Then, he would describe the situation in detail, and people would have to decide for themselves whether or not to believe the story (and dedicate their subsequent lives and 10% of their increase) based on the boy's description of the find and the statements of his non-gemologist friends and whether or not they have strong spiritual feelings when they hear the story.

Because honestly, if I were to find that "parable" convincing, I would probably own as much stock in this endeavor as possible.

Again, if it is considered a good argument or example to create a story that diverges from the actual scenario in very real and important points, it doesn't indicate a good level of understanding and/or faith on the part of the parabler.

You've taken the parable too literally. Nibley is merely suggesting that one has to deal with the available evidence. Professional document examiners and crime scene analysts gain nothing by complaining about what is not available, but must process the document or scene as it exists. That is what Nibley is urging for the Book of Mormon, or other elements of the Mormon Canon.

[cinepro]

Professional document examiners and crime scene analysts gain nothing by complaining about what is not available, but must process the document or scene as it exists. That is what Nibley is urging for the Book of Mormon, or other elements of the Mormon Canon.

But what is not available can be just as informative as what is. If detectives theorize a suicide, then the absence of a firearm in the vicinity of the gunshot victim might be pretty dang important.

Assuming the theory lends itself to falsifiability in the first place, of course. If not, then any discussion of "evidence" is just a semantic exercise is time wasting.

[Robert F. Smith]

But what is not available can be just as informative as what is. If detectives theorize a suicide, then the absence of a firearm in the vicinity of the gunshot victim might be pretty dang important.

Assuming the theory lends itself to falsifiability in the first place, of course. If not, then any discussion of "evidence" is just a semantic exercise is time wasting.

The document examiners who made short work of Mark Hofmann's forgeries did not waste their time in theoretical semantic exercises. They got out their microscopes and other paraphernalia and went to work. They dealt with hard evidence, which is just as applicable to the Mormon Canon and to claims by or about individuals who assert prophetic ability as it is to ballistics, DNA, or other forensic, scientific evidence. The analytic toolbox is not cheaply purchased nor loosely applied by sincere, inquiring minds. It entails a heavy burden for those who use it.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that apriori negative decisions are too often made about the nature of the evidence even before any examination begins. Texts can be dealt with, despite the absence of a Vorlage. Just ask Uncle Dale why he thinks that statistical analysis of texts is useful. Ask Royal Skousen what we have to learn from the Book of Mormon dictated manuscripts. Is it all an exercise in futility? Or is real information forthcoming?

Falsifiability, yes. That is of prime importance. Yet merely saying the word does not magically rid us of the obligation to do some real analysis. That is, if we are serious.

For a CSI, the absence of a firearm at a suicide is positive evidence, not the absence of evidence. Every junior Sherlock Holmes knows that there is a good deal more to solving a case than following the obvious evidence cited by a plodding Inspector LaStrade -- however well intentioned.

[cinepro]

The document examiners who made short work of Mark Hofmann's forgeries did not waste their time in theoretical semantic exercises. They got out their microscopes and other paraphernalia and went to work. They dealt with hard evidence, which is just as applicable to the Mormon Canon and to claims by or about individuals who assert prophetic ability as it is to ballistics, DNA, or other forensic, scientific evidence.

While there were obviously many "scientific" tests applied in the laboratory to determine Hofmann's forgeries, Steve Mayfield of the SLC Police Crime Lab also described these methods:

Much of the work was just good detective procedure

[Robert F. Smith]

While there were obviously many "scientific" tests applied in the laboratory to determine Hofmann's forgeries, Steve Mayfield of the SLC Police Crime Lab also described these methods:

I wonder if the investigators spent much time trying to confirm the authenticity of the documents by looking for obscure connections and parallels to similar documents and telling themselves "There's no way Hofmann could have faked that!" over and over.

I also wonder how things might have been different if a group of smart and scholarly Hofmann supporters had banded together and formed "The Foundation for Authentication of the Remaining ManuscriptS" and eloquently explained each and every "contradiction" or "obvious flaw" with lengthy articles and explanations. If they started with the firm conviction that all the documents must be authentic, do you think there's anything they couldn't explain?

Thanks for the laugh.

However, you need to go back and read about the efforts of the professional document examiners, George Throckmorton and William Flynn, to find out whether in fact any of the Hoffman documents were authentic. Up till that time, we had only the word of Dean Jessee (not a document examiner) to go on -- and he thought the Salamander Letter was authentic! And so did I, and a lot of other people. Of course Throckmorton & Flynn were brought in too late to prevent murder, and many of us kicked ourselves for not seeing Hoffman for what he was. Twenty-twenty hindsight, you know. My friend Richard P. Howard, the RLDS Church Historian, had said all along that Hoffman was a liar, but few had called him a forger.

Document examination is a science and it must be repeatable. That is the fundamental basis of objective science. If someone else's results cannot be reproduced, maybe they aren't real. And so it is with all of forensic science. Mere opinion carries little weight.