The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[William Schryver]

Given your interest in this subject, I find it bizarre that you're not aware of this. This is basic stuff. I summarized it in my JWHA paper, and I've posted that same summary on the boards several times.

Here's part 5 of the EA matched up with Register 4 of pJS 1. As you can see, the characters come, sequentially, directly from the papyrus. I could construct similar graphics for parts 2b-4, though at the moment I haven't the time. Maybe later.

I see that your buddies over on your home board are already patting you on the back for what they think is your having met the challenge--all because they're so ignorant of the issues they don't know any better.

Of course, you knew very well that the context of my challenge (as explained throughout this thread) was to show where characters GIVEN EXPLANATIONS can be found on the papyri. Since there are only 4 (IIRC) characters given explanations in parts 2b - 5, I knew you couldn't produce 20, but I confess I didn't anticipate you would try to trick the unwary into thinking you had.

Yes, folks, as I explain fully in my 2010 presentation, the EA documents list 136 characters. 69 of the 136 are given "explanations." Some of the rest were copied directly from the papyrus, but they weren't used for anything. Of the 69 given explanations, very few come from the papyri. That, of course, was my entire argument from the beginning, and Smith knows it well. Smith is merely trying to pull a deception on the unwary. He's quite good at that. He's been doing it for quite a long time now.

But in this post I challenged Cook, Smith, and "Miller" to demonstrate where 20 of the 69 characters given explanations could be found on the papyri. They can't do it, so Smith is trying to pull a fast one, knowing that, at least, his ignorant apostate cohorts won't know any better and will afford him the acclaim he so craves from them.

Congratulations, Chris. I guess you got what you wanted, but my challenge still remains. Let's see where the characters to which meaning was given are to be found on the papyri. No one cares about the other characters they copied from the papyrus. If those had been given explanations, we might be interested, but they weren't. We want to know where the ones given meaning are to be found. Your thesis depends on those, not the others.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

What I can't believe most of all is that, after you clicked "Post" on what you knew very well was a dodge and a deception, that you ran over to your home board to pawn it off on what you knew were the ignorant masses to be found there.

That's pretty pathetic stuff, Chris. Pretty pathetic. Although it does really highlight what must be your primary motivation in pursuing a career as an anti-Mormon: you started off in it because you wanted to prove that the girl that dumped you had made a big mistake, but now you're in it for nothing more complex than the acclaim you get from ex-Mormons who don't know any better.

Very revealing stuff. Very, very revealing. Kind of sad, too.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

Just to summarize my thoughts on this thread, the central argument of the OP has the following logical construction:

Premise 1: The original Book of Abraham translation was in fact written before the Abraham Manuscripts.

Premise 2: If the original Book of Abraham translation was written before the Abraham Manuscripts, then there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

Conclusion: Therefore (by modus ponens), there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

I have a general understanding of the basis for Premise 1. I don’t see any basis for believing Premise 2.

In contrast, I have the following reasons to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated that the Book of Breathings was the source of the Book of Abraham, regardless of whether the original Book of Abraham translation was made before or after the Abraham Manuscripts:

Reason 1: Abraham 1:12 states that a rendering of the altar is at the commencement of the original manuscript. A reasonable inference is that the Book of Abraham starts immediately after the rendition without some irrelevant pagan text thrown in-between Abraham’s drawing of the altar and Abraham’s description of the events.

Reason 2: A reasonable inference from the Kirtland Egyptian papers is that some of Joseph Smith’s scribes believed that the Book of Breathings was the source of the Book of Abraham, because they were actively connecting one with the other. It is reasonable to infer that Joseph Smith guided them to this belief.

[William Schryver]

So it's clear that Chris Smith has punted on the challenge ... ok ... I see that "George Miller" is lurking about, and since Chris says "George" believes there are 20 characters from the EA (with explanations, lest "George" try to dodge the question, too) to be found on the papyri, I renew the challenge for "George" to meet. In fact, I'll even lower the number to 15.

What do you say, George? Can you succeed where Chris failed? Here are 32 of them to choose from:

Show us where these "Egyptian" characters are found on the papyri.

[William Schryver]

Just to summarize my thoughts on this thread, the central argument of the OP has the following logical construction:

Premise 1: The original Book of Abraham translation was in fact written before the Abraham Manuscripts.

Premise 2: If the original Book of Abraham translation was written before the Abraham Manuscripts, then there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

Conclusion: Therefore (by modus ponens), there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

I have a general understanding of the basis for Premise 1. I don’t see any basis for believing Premise 2.

In contrast, I have the following reasons to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated that the Book of Breathings was the source of the Book of Abraham, regardless of whether the original Book of Abraham translation was made before or after the Abraham Manuscripts:

Reason 1: Abraham 1:12 states that a rendering of the altar is at the commencement of the original manuscript. A reasonable inference is that the Book of Abraham starts immediately after the rendition without some irrelevant pagan text thrown in-between Abraham’s drawing of the altar and Abraham’s description of the events.

Reason 2: A reasonable inference from the Kirtland Egyptian papers is that some of Joseph Smith’s scribes believed that the Book of Breathings was the source of the Book of Abraham, because they were actively connecting one with the other. It is reasonable to infer that Joseph Smith guided them to this belief.

You apparently don't see several problems faced by your thesis. I've already mentioned several, but you seem to want to ignore them. So I'll give you another one to consider:

I just posted an image in my previous post that contains 32 characters, the explanations for which consist of a good portion of the text of the Book of Abraham. The characters shown above are not Egyptian and are not found on the papyrus. We know that Joseph Smith took part in the Egyptian Alphabet project. That project post-dated the reception (presumably by revelation) of the text of the Book of Abraham. How do you explain that one set of characters (not Egyptian) is associated with the Book of Abraham in the Egyptian Alphabet project, and another entirely different set of characters (from the Book of Breathings) is associated with the Book of Abraham on the two manuscripts produced (copied) by Williams and Parrish?

[Ares]

What I can't believe most of all is that, after you clicked "Post" on what you knew very well was a dodge and a deception, that you ran over to your home board to pawn it off on what you knew were the ignorant masses to be found there.

That's pretty pathetic stuff, Chris. Pretty pathetic. Although it does really highlight what must be your primary motivation in pursuing a career as an anti-Mormon: you started off in it because you wanted to prove that the girl that dumped you had made a big mistake, but now you're in it for nothing more complex than the acclaim you get from ex-Mormons who don't know any better.

Very revealing stuff. Very, very revealing. Kind of sad, too.

Please avoid board wars and personal remarks. We don't care what they do on other boards- don't bring it back here. Thank you, Ares

[William Schryver]

Please avoid board wars and personal remarks. We don't care what they do on other boards- don't bring it back here. Thank you, Ares

I'll work to restrain myself, even when provoked.

[George Miller]

So it's clear that Chris Smith has punted on the challenge ... ok ... I see that "George Miller" is lurking about, and since Chris says "George" believes there are 20 characters from the EA (with explanations, lest "George" try to dodge the question, too) to be found on the papyri, I renew the challenge for "George" to meet. In fact, I'll even lower the number to 15.

What do you say, George? Can you succeed where Chris failed? Here are 32 of them to choose from:

Show us where these "Egyptian" characters are found on the papyri.

I will be happy to do so at the Mormon History Association meeting in 2012 should my proposal be accepted. I can show you well over 20 as you have requested here. I will be happy to buy you dinner afterwards and chat about the subject in depth. Efforts to draw me out here at this time will not prove successful.

Edited October 27, 2011 by George Miller

[William Schryver]

I will be happy to do so at the Mormon History Association meeting in 2012 should my proposal be accepted. I can show you well over 20 as you have requested here. I will be happy to buy you dinner afterwards and chat about the subject in depth. Efforts to draw me out here at this time will not prove successful.

"George,"

As I said above, I may, just for giggles, take two or three hieratic characters from the Book of Breathings text and slice and dice them so as to create all 26 characters in the English alphabet. I'm absolutely certain that is more or less what you will have to do in order to miraculously produce the characters in question on the extant scroll of Hor. Why? Because, quite obviously, the characters in the image I posted above are not Egyptian.

Even so, I see you will not be compelled to show your methodology at this time. Will you, at least, answer us one question? Here it is: the Egyptian characters that you will claim conform to the EA characters shown above in my posted image, do these Egyptian characters on the papyrus appear in order, one after another? Or are they scattered in various places on the papyrus? I'm just curious.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

You apparently don't see several problems faced by your thesis. I've already mentioned several, but you seem to want to ignore them. So I'll give you another one to consider:

I just posted an image in my previous post that contains 32 characters, the explanations for which consist of a good portion of the text of the Book of Abraham. The characters shown above are not Egyptian and are not found on the papyrus. We know that Joseph Smith took part in the Egyptian Alphabet project. That project post-dated the reception (presumably by revelation) of the text of the Book of Abraham. How do you explain that one set of characters (not Egyptian) is associated with the Book of Abraham in the Egyptian Alphabet project, and another entirely different set of characters (from the Book of Breathings) is associated with the Book of Abraham on the two manuscripts produced (copied) by Williams and Parrish?

That implies is that the Egyptian Alphabet project and Book of Abraham manuscript project aren't consistent with each other, right? I don't see any need to explain this.

I readily concede that it is possible that Williams and Parrish associated the Book of Breathings characters with the Book of Abraham for a reason other than the belief or hypothesis that one is derived from the other. I think that is somewhat unlikely, but certainly possible.

Regarding your central point in the OP, it logically rests on the following premise:

Premise 2

:

If

the original Book of Abraham translation was written before the Abraham Manuscripts,

then

there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

Why should somebody accept this premise? I've asked this question in one way or another multiple times, and I don't believe you've ever addressed it.

[William Schryver]

You know, if I had attempted to pawn off on the public a methodology like the one prepared by "George Miller," there would currently be at least 20 threads at MDB dedicated to talking about what a ridiculous thesis I was advancing. It would go on for months and months. Here again is the example of "George's" methodology for taking a hieroglyphic character from the papyrus and slicing it up arbitrarily until it magically becomes (kind of) characters from the Egyptian Alphabet document:

Incidentally, George, the image of "Ki" should be the same as "Iota"; the "tail" you show on it is actually just a stray pen stroke. "Ki" is the "compound" of "Iota," but has the same symbol: a dot. There are, as I recall, two instances of it in the GAEL where there is a stray pen stroke like the one you show. But all other instances of "Ki" are identical to "Iota".

[William Schryver]

George,

One important question for you since you're still lurking about:

Can you please explain to me how William Phelps managed to magically extract the following characters from the scroll of Hor several weeks before the Egyptian artifacts even arrived in Kirtland?

[William Schryver]

Regarding your central point in the OP, it logically rests on the following premise:

Premise 2

:

If

the original Book of Abraham translation was written before the Abraham Manuscripts,

then

there is no reason to believe that Joseph Smith insinuated or believed that the Book of Breathings were the source of some or all of the Book of Abraham.

Why should somebody accept this premise? I've asked this question in one way or another multiple times, and I don't believe you've ever addressed it.

Are you serious? Really?

OK, let me turn it back on you: if the translation of the Book of Abraham occurred in early July 1835 and the Egyptian Alphabet was produced in late July/August 1835, and the Williams/Parrish Abraham manuscripts were produced in November 1835, and you were in Kirtland in September 1835, why would you have any reason to believe that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the Book of Breathings in order to produce the Book of Abraham, when the only evidence you have is the Egyptian Alphabet, which associates an entirely different character set with the text of the Book of Abraham?

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will,

I am glad you decided to come back to the board, even it if is only for a short time. This thread is fascinating. I am enjoying very much the discussion at hand.

Side note: this is completely unrelated to this thread, but have you seen this?

http://www2.gibson.c...aul-Goldie.aspx

Drool.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Analytics]

Are you serious? Really?

OK, let me turn it back on you: if the translation of the Book of Abraham occurred in early July 1835 and the Egyptian Alphabet was produced in late July/August 1835, and the Williams/Parrish Abraham manuscripts were produced in November 1835, and you were in Kirtland in September 1835, why would you have any reason to believe that Joseph Smith thought he was translating the Book of Breathings in order to produce the Book of Abraham, when the only evidence you have is the Egyptian Alphabet, which associates an entirely different character set with the text of the Book of Abraham?

According to that timeline, in 1835 I would have taken Joseph Smith at his word and assumed that the Book of Breathings was entailed in "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." I would have noted that Abraham 1:12 states that a rendering of the altar is at the commencement of the original manuscript. I would have made the reasonable inference is that the Book of Abraham starts immediately after the rendition without some irrelevant pagan text thrown in-between Abraham’s drawing of the altar and Abraham’s description of the events.

[Calm]

Side note: this is completely unrelated to this thread, but have you seen this?

http://www2.gibson.c...aul-Goldie.aspx

Drool.

Boys and their toys.....

[William Schryver]

Will,

I am glad you decided to come back to the board, even it if is only for a short time. This thread is fascinating. I am enjoying very much the discussion at hand.

Side note: this is completely unrelated to this thread, but have you seen this?

http://www2.gibson.c...aul-Goldie.aspx

Drool.

Yeah, I've seen it. Got $12000 you're not using?

[Ares]

I'll work to restrain myself, even when provoked.

Much appreciated!

[William Schryver]

According to that timeline, in 1835 I would have taken Joseph Smith at his word and assumed that the Book of Breathings was entailed in "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." I would have noted that Abraham 1:12 states that a rendering of the altar is at the commencement of the original manuscript. I would have made the reasonable inference is that the Book of Abraham starts immediately after the rendition without some irrelevant pagan text thrown in-between Abraham’s drawing of the altar and Abraham’s description of the events.

Oh. My. Gosh.

I'm convinced that deliberate intransigence is a conscious gambit by you people.

At any rate, I don't think the Book of Breathings qualifies as a "pagan text" by any means! As I said before, it is more accurately entitled Document of Fellowship Written by Isis and, in a certain way, can be viewed as the recipient's "temple recommend" for the afterlife. When you then consider the extent to which Judaism had been syncretized by Egyptians in Thebes during this particular point in time ... well, I don't find it unreasonable at all that both a Document of Fellowship and a Book of Abraham could appear on the same scroll. I'm not saying it had to happen that way in order for Joseph Smith to be vindicated, but I'm saying that it is not unreasonable to suggest it, all things considered.

In any event, to the extent that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the Egyptian Alphabet, there is no concrete evidence to tie the BoA to the Book of Breathings, although it certainly appears that Williams and Parrish (and probably Joseph Smith, too) did not know where the Book of Abraham appeared on the scroll, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Edited to change "Phelps" to "Parrish" - a mistake made in haste.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[stemelbow]

In any event, to the extent that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the Egyptian Alphabet, there is no concrete evidence to tie the BoA to the Book of Breathings, although it certainly appears that Williams and Parrish (and probably Joseph Smith, too) did not know where the Book of Abraham appeared on the scroll, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Interesting thought. Afterall, regarding the BoM translation, the evidence seems to suggest Joseph never consulted the text on the plates. \

The more I think about the translations, the more I have to question all the assumptions, easily rendered, regarding them. I don't know if I can really picture the how of the translations.

Carry on, this is interesting stuff for me.

[Analytics]

Oh. My. Gosh.

I'm convinced that deliberate intransigence is a conscious gambit by you people.

At any rate, I don't think the Book of Breathings qualifies as a "pagan text" by any means! As I said before, it is more accurately entitled Document of Fellowship Written by Isis and, in a certain way, can be viewed as the recipient's "temple recommend" for the afterlife. When you then consider the extent to which Judaism had been syncretized by Egyptians in Thebes during this particular point in time ... well, I don't find it unreasonable at all that both a Document of Fellowship and a Book of Abraham could appear on the same scroll. I'm not saying it had to happen that way in order for Joseph Smith to be vindicated, but I'm saying that it is not unreasonable to suggest it, all things considered.

In any event, to the extent that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the Egyptian Alphabet, there is no concrete evidence to tie the BoA to the Book of Breathings, although it certainly appears that Williams and Phelps (and probably Joseph Smith, too) did not know where the Book of Abraham appeared on the scroll, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

My argument doesn't hinge on whether the Book of Breathings is labeled as a pagan text or as a temple recommend to the afterlife or as anything else. My argument hinges on the way Abraham 1:12 links the text with the depiction of the altar.

It is logical presume that Abraham 1 starts immediately after the illustration to the story that the text claims is at the beginning of the original manuscript. If, for whatever reason, Abraham decided to throw “a temple recommend for the afterlife” into the document he was creating, it seems arbitrary and unlikely that it would separate the text and the illustration of Abraham 1.

[William Schryver]

I want to emphasize that, assuming there really was an Abraham text on the scroll of Hor (and I personally believe there probably was, although I don't consider it imperative in order for Joseph Smith to be considered a prophet and for the BoA to be considered an inspired restoration of an ancient document), I don't believe Joseph knew where it was located on that scroll. I think the textual evidence bears this out. Those who produced the documents in question seem to have been trying to find a relationship between the text Joseph had received (the Book of Abraham) and the Egyptian scrolls in their possession. But they didn't know how to do it. At least this could be an explanation for what we see. It doesn't, in my mind, explain why they would be using non-Egyptian characters in the Egyptian Alphabet, but it could explain why, later on, they try to match up the text with the Book of Breathings characters. I'm still trying to sort out these inconsistencies in my own mind.

[William Schryver]

My argument doesn't hinge on whether the Book of Breathings is labeled as a pagan text or as a temple recommend to the afterlife or as anything else. My argument hinges on the way Abraham 1:12 links the text with the depiction of the altar.

It is logical presume that Abraham 1 starts immediately after the illustration to the story that the text claims is at the beginning of the original manuscript. If, for whatever reason, Abraham decided to throw “a temple recommend for the afterlife” into the document he was creating, it seems arbitrary and unlikely that it would separate the text and the illustration of Abraham 1.

I don't think your assumptions are logical at all given the extreme likelihood that Joseph Smith did not know where the Abraham text was found on the scrolls. I don't believe he did. Just as I don't believe he could have pointed to the beginning of 3rd Nephi or Alma on the plates he translated into the Book of Mormon.

[Analytics]

It is logical presume that Abraham 1 starts immediately after the illustration to the story that the text claims is at the beginning of the original manuscript. If, for whatever reason, Abraham decided to throw “a temple recommend for the afterlife” into the document he was creating, it seems arbitrary and unlikely that it would separate the text and the illustration of Abraham 1.

I'll add that the Book of Abraham manuscripts imply that at the very least, some of Joseph Smith's scribes made the same logical deduction I made.

[Analytics]

I don't think your assumptions are logical at all given the extreme likelihood that Joseph Smith did not know where the Abraham text was found on the scrolls. I don't believe he did. Just as I don't believe he could have pointed to the beginning of 3rd Nephi or Alma on the plates he translated into the Book of Mormon.

Is there "the extreme likelihood that Joseph Smith did not know where the Abraham text was found on the scrolls?" I don't think so--it would be expected that Abraham 1 starts immediately after the depection it references.

Joseph Smith represented to be more familiar with the alleged golden plates than you give him credit for. He claimed that the title page "is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates." If he knew exactly where the Book of Mormon began on the golden plates (as in in fact claimed), why wouldn't he know where the Book of Abraham began on the scrolls?