Missing Papyrus

[Loran Howard Blood]

W.W. Phelps, in a letter written in 1835, stated the following:

"The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.

Another famous indication of the historical reality the text critical reconstruction focus of most present argument ignores is an article in the March 27, 1835 issue of the non-LDS newspaper The Painesville Telegraph:

There was found with this person [mummy no. 1] a roll or book, having a little resemblance to birch bark; language unknown. Some linguists however say they can decipher 13-36, in what they term an epitaph; ink black and red; many female figures. [Mummy] No. 2 ... found with roll as [mummy] No. 1, filled with hieroglyphics, rudely executed. [Mummy] No. 3 ... had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2....

Yet more evidence from The Cleveland Whig of March 25, 1835:

There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are somewhat decayed, but at the centre the leaves are in a state of perfect preservation. It is the writing of no ordinary penman, probably of the old man near whose heart it was deposited at the embalming. The characters are the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but of what is discourses none can tell....There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written - its character and import involved in like mystery.

Joseph himself, of course, described the condition of the papyri in his possession as "'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...

The present textual remains are utterly devoid of rubrics and, unlike the documents Joseph described, are in a poor state of preservation.

Other 19th century witnesses attest to the presence of both red and black characters comprising different parts of the documents extent at the time. But there is more yet. The size of the scroll (size does matter) remains a problem for the critics due to the eyewitness accounts detailing a significantly larger corpus of material than exists at the present time.

One LDS visitor, Charlotte Haven, recalled that Mother Smith "opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac.'" Preston Nibley visited the Nauvoo House with Joseph F. Smith as late as 1906 to observe "the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went."

Another observer, William S. West, said that there was enough material present at that time to comprise a tome greater in size then the Bible, which, if only fractionally true, calls into serious question the relevance few fragments we have now as being, in any sense, the "source" for the Pearl of Great Price.

It should be kept in mind that, as important as it is in its own way, the present focus on text critical reconstruction of the BofAs origins has come to such prominence precisely because we lack the empirical, documentary evidence that would fill in the gaps over which so much argument has taken place.

[SkepticTheist]

Your quotations of these things are typical for those that wish to uphold the missing papyrus theory. Nibley quoted all these things over and over again.

As to the claim that the text is devoid of rubrics on the current papyrus, that is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia...._Papyrus_IV.JPG

If the facsimiles are any testament as to what state the papyrus were in, Facsimile #1 and #2 had lacunae in them, and were definitely not in some perfectly preserved state the way you are trying to impose on these statements.

Joseph Smith had to "restore" the missing pieces of the facsimiles using other parts of the papyri.

Oliver Cowdery described the "facsimiles" of the Book of Joseph and the descriptions all answer to the pictures on the extant Book of the Dead papyri.

You can't go off quoting this kind of stuff without taking into account the physical evidence at hand, and the physical evidence doesn't support your contentions. Facsimile #1 and the KEP identify the Sensen Papyrus without question as the BOA Papyrus. The Book of the Dead papyri are Joseph's record. We have all the siginificant portions of the papyri that we need to identify them despite missing pieces like the Facsimile #2 Hypocephalus and Facsimile #3 scene originals.

there is just no missing papyrus from the standpoint of the key pieces that Joseph Smith identified, notwithstanding there are missing pieces. From comparison with other papyri from Egypt, we already know what those missing pieces would have contained.

Besides, they have been damaged further since the time of Joseph Smith.

So, regardless of how long all this stuff was, we do have the key pieces.

W.W. Phelps, in a letter written in 1835, stated the following:

Another famous indication of the historical reality the text critical reconstruction focus of most present argument ignores is an article in the March 27, 1835 issue of the non-LDS newspaper The Painesville Telegraph:

Yet more evidence from The Cleveland Whig of March 25, 1835:

Joseph himself, of course, described the condition of the papyri in his possession as "'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...

The present textual remains are utterly devoid of rubrics and, unlike the documents Joseph described, are in a poor state of preservation.

Other 19th century witnesses attest to the presence of both red and black characters comprising different parts of the documents extent at the time. But there is more yet. The size of the scroll (size does matter) remains a problem for the critics due to the eyewitness accounts detailing a significantly larger corpus of material than exists at the present time.

One LDS visitor, Charlotte Haven, recalled that Mother Smith "opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac.'" Preston Nibley visited the Nauvoo House with Joseph F. Smith as late as 1906 to observe "the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went."

Another observer, William S. West, said that there was enough material present at that time to comprise a tome greater in size then the Bible, which, if only fractionally true, calls into serious question the relevance few fragments we have now as being, in any sense, the "source" for the Pearl of Great Price.

It should be kept in mind that, as important as it is in its own way, the present focus on text critical reconstruction of the BofAs origins has come to such prominence precisely because we lack the empirical, documentary evidence that would fill in the gaps over which so much argument has taken place.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Your quotations of these things are typical for those that wish to uphold the missing papyrus theory. Nibley quoted all these things over and over again.

As to the claim that the text is devoid of rubrics on the current papyrus, that is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia...._Papyrus_IV.JPG

You're claiming then, that the Sensen text contains rubrics? That, after all, is the document that critics have traditionally held to be the source of the BofA.

If the facsimiles are any testament as to what state the papyrus were in, Facsimile #1 and #2 had lacunae in them, and were definitely not in some perfectly preserved state the way you are trying to impose on these statements.

Apparently, from the evidence as it stands, any imposition was done by the eyewitnesses themselves at the time. The testimony of the condition of the documents at the time is theirs.

Joseph Smith had to "restore" the missing pieces of the facsimiles using other parts of the papyri.

And?

Oliver Cowdery described the "facsimiles" of the Book of Joseph and the descriptions all answer to the pictures on the extant Book of the Dead papyri.

Upon what basis do you assume that the large portions of missing textual material the eyewitness accounts imply did not also contain similar motifs and pictorial representations?

You can't go off quoting this kind of stuff without taking into account the physical evidence at hand. Facsimile #1 and the KEP identify the Sensen Papyrus without question as the BOA Papyrus.

They do nothing of the kind, as the entire present ongoing text critical debate makes quite clear and as the substantial quantities of missing material --which you have yet to so much as engage in a serious intellectual manner -- very strongly suggest. As we don't know what was on that missing material, your assertions of certainty regarding what, at best, are highy hypothetical and conjectural inferences, are, at their height, indicative of what could only be some sloppy, and perhaps tendentious thinking on this subject.

The Book of the Dead papyri are Joseph's record. We have all the siginificant portions of the papyri that we need to identify them despite missing pieces like the Facsimile #2 Hypocephalus and Facsimile #3 scene originals.

The boy who cried begging the question is much like the boy who cried "Wolf!" in that, after a period of time, it ceases to elicit a serious response. What was on the copious quantities of missing textual material as established by a body of 19th century eyewitnesses?

there is just no missing papyrus from the standpoint of the key pieces that Joseph Smith identified, notwithstanding there are missing pieces. From comparison with other papyri from Egypt, we already know what those missing pieces would have contained.

This has, to understate the state of the situation, been long demolished by competent LDS scholarship for quite sometime. Neither you, nor I , nor anyone else has the slightest conception or idea whatsoever of what was on the missing textual material. None. Pretense to the contrary is a sign of desperation, in my view, as well as of a determined insistence of avoiding the really thorny problems presented by both the placing of the BofA in an ancient setting by a large corpus of similar ancient texts that have come to light only since Joseph Smith's time, and by the missing textual materials who's very existence represents a black box for critics of the BofA.

Absolutist statements of intellectual bravado regarding aspects of the question of the origin of the BofA that lurch far beyond the presently available evidence and move beyond the kinds of tentative inference the evidence allows to final, inflated claims of certainty may make you feel better about the conceptual and logical gaps within your arguments, but they cannot cover the fact that, in a strictly intellectual sense, you are way overstating and exaggerating the strength of your case.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That seems like a very silly way to think

Apparently, I am not open to the idea that my way of thinking is "silly".

[jskains]

Loran,

That IS the bases of his argument. He takes the quotes so far out of context and demands a certain interpretation that he then acts as if no other interpretation is possible, case closed.

I talked to someone who has seen his "work" and said it doesn't get any different. They have a copy of this Nail of Heaven, and he laughed, saying none of his research is reliable because he spends so much time stretching quotes and events that there is almost a dangerous bias.

Ed here has some ax to grind, which makes his position very unstable.

JMS

[SkepticTheist]

My opinion is my opinion. You people can think whatever you want.

I thought after my apology that you were a little less toxic about all this.

Loran,

That IS the bases of his argument. He takes the quotes so far out of context and demands a certain interpretation that he then acts as if no other interpretation is possible, case closed.

I talked to someone who has seen his "work" and said it doesn't get any different. They have a copy of this Nail of Heaven, and he laughed, saying none of his research is reliable because he spends so much time stretching quotes and events that there is almost a dangerous bias.

Ed here has some ax to grind, which makes his position very unstable.

JMS

[SkepticTheist]

Critics of your "competent LDS scholarship" have done substantial work for decades.

Besides, I don't think you understand my position at all on the historicity and reality of the Book of Abraham.

You are preaching to the choir when you talk about ancient origins.

Do you think that I am a critic of the Book of Abraham? I'm a Book of Abraham apologist.

I just don't believe in the Missing Papyrus Theory, and I'm a critic of apologists that insist that it is the only acceptable explanation.

You're claiming then, that the Sensen text contains rubrics? That, after all, is the document that critics have traditionally held to be the source of the BofA.

Apparently, from the evidence as it stands, any imposition was done by the eyewitnesses themselves at the time. The testimony of the condition of the documents at the time is theirs.

And?

Upon what basis do you assume that the large portions of missing textual material the eyewitness accounts imply did not also contain similar motifs and pictorial representations?

They do nothing of the kind, as the entire present ongoing text critical debate makes quite clear and as the substantial quantities of missing material --which you have yet to so much as engage in a serious intellectual manner -- very strongly suggest. As we don't know what was on that missing material, your assertions of certainty regarding what, at best, are highy hypothetical and conjectural inferences, are, at their height, indicative of what could only be some sloppy, and perhaps tendentious thinking on this subject.

The boy who cried begging the question is much like the boy who cried "Wolf!" in that, after a perios of time, it ceases to elicit a serious response. What was on the copious quantities of missing textual material as established by a body of 19th century eyewitnesses?

This has, to understate the state of the situation, been long demolished by competent LDS scholarship for quite sometime. Neither you, nor I , nor anyone else has the slightest conception or idea whatsoever of what was on the missing textual material. None. Pretense to the contrary is a sign of desperation, in my view. as well as of a determined insistence of avoiding the really thorny problems presented by both the placing of the BofA in an ancient setting by a large corpus of similar ancient texts that have come to light only since Joseph Smith's time, and by the missing textual materials who's very existence represents a black box for critics of the BofA.

Absolutist statements of intellectual bravado regarding aspects of the question of the origin of the BofA that lurch far beyond the presently available evidence and move beyond the kinds of tentative inference the evidence allows to final, inflated claims of certainty may make you feel better about the conceptual and logical gaps within your arguments, but they cannot cover the fact that, in a strictly intellectual sense, you are way overstating and exaggerating the strength of your case.

[Loran Howard Blood]

You people can think whatever you want.

We try to meet and exceed all expectations in that department.

At least I do.

[SkepticTheist]

Well then, first off, you should realize that you are talking to a fellow LDS theorist who believes in the ancient origin of the Book of Abraham.

You are talking to me like I'm some anti-Mormon in your previous message.

Please don't treat me like I'm a critic of the Book of Abraham just because I criticize Hugh Nibley's and John Gee's work on the Papyrus.

And you are talking like my faithfulness and loyalty to the Church is contingent on my accepting your view of the Papyrus.

We try to meet and exceed all expectations in that department.

At least I do.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Critics of your "competent LDS scholarship" have done substantial work for decades.

Yes, I know. Suffice it to say that, to the degree you are basing your own arguments upon theirs, you are engaged in a bull-in-a-china-closet exaggeration of the strength of anything they have produced thus far.

Besides, I don't think you understand my position at all on the historicity and reality of the Book of Abraham.

Do you think that I am a critic of the Book of Abraham? I'm a Book of Abraham apologist.

I just don't believe in the Missing Papyrus Theory.

So you say. Well, I'll let you explain that in your own due time. In the meantime though, let it be said again (as someone else in this thread already has), that the missing papyri are no theory. The missing material themselves, unless you wish to discount numerous, independent eyewitness accounts, are established historical fact.

I think your claims that "We have all the siginificant portions of the papyri that we need to identify them despite missing pieces like the Facsimile #2 Hypocephalus and Facsimile #3 scene originals." and that "From comparison with other papyri from Egypt, we already know what those missing pieces would have contained." are gross overexaggerations of the the state of the evidence you are describing and the strength of the inferences derivable from them.

I'll let others more knowledgeable in the details of this argument to chime in here stir the pot at greater length.

[SkepticTheist]

Inferences is all Gee has to go on. So I assure you that it is you that by entirely discounting my position, it is you that is way overblowing the strength of your own position. It is not that I entirely discount yours. It is that I don't believe yours. I have to wonder why it is that because I make a statement, that that makes it an "absolutist" thing. It seems that you are talking in pretty absolutist statements in your own right. If there is anyone that has made retractions of their work before, and displayed an openmindedness towards changing my mind, it would be me. I was the pioneer of the Heartland Theory of Book of Mormon Lands. Rod Meldrum based his work on my first book. I would have you know that I retracted that theory. So please don't tell me that I am a dogmatist. Opinionated I may be, but inflexible? I am nothing of the sort.

Oh, by the way, I'm a temple worker in the Jordan River Temple, so I'll let my bishop be the judge of my activity and my loyalty to the church, not you.

Yes, I know. Suffice it to say that, to the degree you are basing your own arguments upon theirs, you are engaged in a bull-in-a-china-closet exaggeration of the strength of anything they have produced thus far.

So you say. Well, I'll let you explain that in your own due time. In the meantime though, let it be said again (as someone else in this thread already has), that the missing papyri are no theory. The missing material themselves, unless you wish to discount numerous, independent eyewitness accounts, are established historical fact.

I think your claims that "We have all the siginificant portions of the papyri that we need to identify them despite missing pieces like the Facsimile #2 Hypocephalus and Facsimile #3 scene originals." and that "From comparison with other papyri from Egypt, we already know what those missing pieces would have contained." are gross overexaggerations of the the state of the evidence you are describing and the strength of the inferences derivable from them.

I'll let others more knowledgeable in the details of this argument to chime in here stir the pot at greater length.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Oh, by the way, I'm a temple worker in the Jordan River Temple, so I'll let my bishop be the judge of my activity and my loyalty to the church, not you.

I never questioned it.

Sensitive, are we not?

[SkepticTheist]

You know, come to think of it, I met a guy named Loran at the FAIR conference, and he seemed like a nice guy. I wonder if that was you.

I am also a member of FAIR as well, you know. Definitely not representative of the majority view by any means.

Ed Goble

Yes, I know. Suffice it to say that, to the degree you are basing your own arguments upon theirs, you are engaged in a bull-in-a-china-closet exaggeration of the strength of anything they have produced thus far.

So you say. Well, I'll let you explain that in your own due time. In the meantime though, let it be said again (as someone else in this thread already has), that the missing papyri are no theory. The missing material themselves, unless you wish to discount numerous, independent eyewitness accounts, are established historical fact.

I think your claims that "We have all the siginificant portions of the papyri that we need to identify them despite missing pieces like the Facsimile #2 Hypocephalus and Facsimile #3 scene originals." and that "From comparison with other papyri from Egypt, we already know what those missing pieces would have contained." are gross overexaggerations of the the state of the evidence you are describing and the strength of the inferences derivable from them.

I'll let others more knowledgeable in the details of this argument to chime in here stir the pot at greater length.

[SkepticTheist]

I think if you lived my life, you would be a bit sensitive. Oh well. Have a nice day.

Sensitive, are we not?

[Loran Howard Blood]

You know, come to think of it, I met a guy named Loran at the FAIR conference, and he seemed like a nice guy. I wonder if that was you.

I am also a member of FAIR as well, you know. Definitely not representative of the majority view by any means.

Ed Goble

Well, I guess this is supposed to be some kind of a "gotcha" thing. All I will say is that by discounting the fact of the missing textual material we know once existed, but which we have no idea regarding as to content, one cuts oneself off from one of the most powerful arguments against the modern text critical preoccupation of the critics which, from my own perspective, while instructive, is not going to be the means, if there are any to be found, of providing the really pivotal supporting evidence required to render the secular critics arguments moot.

Perhaps I'm wrong and a breakthrough will finally come in the text critical area, but given that this has been underway now for nearly half a century, and given the the body of actual textual evidence we have to work with has not increased by one thread of papyrus since that time, I'm dubious of its utility.

I consider Brother Meldrum to have wandered off the reservation toward the Emerald City, but I'm not implying anything about you in saying that.

[Loran Howard Blood]

One more point. After a brief absence due to circumstances -- and a small body of politically oriented threads -- beyond my control, I've decided not to use the moniker "Droopy" for my screen name here, and to go all the way and just use my full real name.

The reason is to avoid personal rancor due to statements made that appear to imply a larger, global position on some issue when a prior knowledge of my actual identity would forestall hasty assumptions, and to avoid unnecessary conflagration as, most people here know my general positions on numerous issues and would be perplexed if I showed up under a new moniker with something that seemed unusual without the larger context of my actual identity.

I do love my avatar, however.

[jskains]

Oh, by the way, I'm a temple worker in the Jordan River Temple, so I'll let my bishop be the judge of my activity and my loyalty to the church, not you.

Oh heck no.. That's my temple... I better start going to another one or he might see me and scream that I am stupid for daring to believe in the missing papyrus theory.

JMS

[SkepticTheist]

Gotcha thing?

Ok. Look. I'm not loyal to any particular ideology, faithful or critical. I am not going to uphold apologetics from some other apologist that is simply wrong (as I see it, again as I *believe it to be* at this time, just for the sake of those that want me to acknowledge my "openness").

I am not wed to some argument made by the Big Scholars to make anything moot, as if I should be loyal to some political party because I'm an apologist. I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm not going to be loyal to the "team" as some may perceive it in the sense of being intellectually on the side of some apologist that has it wrong as I see it, and allow that to go unchallenged.

Why should the secular critics' argument be moot? What is wrong with it aside from the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't translate? I see nothing wrong with the fundamental claim that we have the papyri in question in our possession. If apologists haven't explained the mechanics of the translation process before now, it isn't the fault of the evidence. So why should the evidence be sacrificed for a more easy apologetic explanation? And as I see it, since the apologists haven't spent enough time coming up with good enough explanations for the KEP and the Sensen, that is their fault, not the fault of the evidence. They decided to put all their eggs in the Missing Papyrus basket. That was a bad bet.

Well, I guess this is supposed to be some kind of a "gotcha" thing. All I will say is that by discounting the fact of the missing textual material we know once existed, but which we have no idea regarding as to content, one cuts oneself off from one of the most powerful arguments against the modern text critical preoccupation of the critics which, from my own perspective, while instructive, is not going to be the means, if there are any to be found, of providing the really pivotal supporting evidence required to render the secular critics arguments moot.

Perhaps I'm wrong and a breakthrough will finally come in the text critical area, but given that this has been underway now for nearly half a century, and given the the body of actual textual evidence we have to work with has not increased by one thread of papyrus since that time, I'm dubious of its utility.

I consider Brother Meldrum to have wandered off the reservation toward the Emerald City, but I'm not implying anything about you in saying that.

[maupayman]

Apparently, I am not open to the idea that my way of thinking is "silly".

You really think that most people think that to be open minded, means to accept anything that is presented to you? That's called being gullible, not open-minded. Please cite one person who has defined open-mindedness the way you claim they did.

[maupayman]

Upon what basis do you assume that the large portions of missing textual material the eyewitness accounts imply did not also contain similar motifs and pictorial representations?

Probably, similar to the basis you use to say that the missing material did contained similar motifs and pictoral representations. In your case, it appears to be necessity.

[Mortal Man]

If anyone here is interested in learning what is actually missing from Joseph's original papyrus collection, I encourage you to read Chris Smith's paper when it comes out next month.

In the meantime, you can see for yourself if the Book of Abraham could have been on the scroll containing Facsimile 1.

[jskains]

If anyone here is interested in learning what is actually missing from Joseph's original papyrus collection, I encourage you to read Chris Smith's paper when it comes out next month.

In the meantime, you can see for yourself if the Book of Abraham could have been on the scroll containing Facsimile 1.

Chris ignores a lot of evidence to jump to his conclusions as does that linked document... So I am not sure your use of "actually missing" is honest.

JMS

[jskains]

Chris ignores a lot of evidence to jump to his conclusions as does that linked document... So I am not sure your use of "actually missing" is honest.

JMS

One thing Smith and Cook seems to ignore is the reality that if the context changes for whatever reason, that the Character sizes could not have been different. Or that if there is a reformed Egyptian, that the translation of the letters to text could not have been greater.

Here's the part I find interesting. Even if Joseph was wrong in putting these characters against the text, he had for some reason an understanding or belief that a lot of text could come from a different character. If the BoA was hidden in the egyptian text, but had a different standard of translation that current egyptologists have not yet recovered, then the assumption is completely off that even the smaller missing length could not contain the BoA is wrong.

Just saying.

JMS

[jskains]

One last thing.. Even in their estimates, 5 feet is missing. Don't let the 151cm fool you.. That's 5 feet folks. I don't care who you are, that's a lot of missing text.

[jskains]

Sorry, thinking out loud here, but if the translation was visual, and he was focusing on the English text, and not the characters beside it, Joseph Smith, then a lot of this does fit.

In other words, if KEP is an afterthought, and if the missing text has a unique pattern of translation, he could have visually seen that there were a lot of English text to one Character. But when he went back to coordinate, he was trying to piece together what he remembered he saw. If HE made the wrong assumption that the text of the BoA was supposed to be immediately after the Facsimile, then it makes sense that he focused on the scroll we have and not the part that contains the actual text. Thus KEP is a mistake based on the same assumptions WE are making now.

JMS