The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[stemelbow]

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?

I don't know if this is all that helpful. Joseph was said to have no used the plates for the BoM translation, and when they returned from breaks, he picked up right where they left off. That he knew that the last leaf of the plates contained the info found in the title page is more of an exception I'd say. The papyri present a bit of a different issue here, there are different parts of the collection which means its quite possible the actual text, if found on any papyri at all, could be in any of the parts.

[William Schryver]

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.

I think I could agree with you that it is possible such an assumption was made--hence the insertion of the phrase into Abr. 1:12. But that doesn't mean that, as has been argued by critics for 40 years, that Joseph Smith was pointing to characters from the Book of Breathings text, and reciting a translation of the Book of Abraham. The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate that that argument is not true; that the Book of Abraham was translated prior to the production of the manuscripts that contain Book of Breathings characters in the left hand column.

Is that so hard to accept/believe? I don't see how it greatly weakens the basic critics' arguments concerning the Book of Abraham, although it may change the way they look at things.

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."

That is the only indication that he knew where anything was on the plates, and it was the facing plate; the first/last one, depending on where you start. It is widely known that he did not have the plates present when he translated the Book of Mormon. I think you are being disingenuous with your suggestion.

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?

I think the one is a non sequitur to the other. There are very good reasons why he wouldn't have known where the Book of Abraham was on the scrolls, and considerable textual evidence that he did not.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[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?

Still waiting for "George" to explain how William Phelps came up with these characters that allegedly came from papyri that didn't arrive in Kirtland until several weeks after he wrote these down in a letter to his wife, and that were then re-used (with different explanations) in the Egyptian alphabet.

[Analytics]

I think I could agree with you that it is possible such an assumption was made--hence the insertion of the phrase into Abr. 1:12. But that doesn't mean that, as has been argued by critics for 40 years, that Joseph Smith was pointing to characters from the Book of Breathings text, and reciting a translation of the Book of Abraham. The entire point of this thread is to demonstrate that that argument is not true; that the Book of Abraham was translated prior to the production of the manuscripts that contain Book of Breathings characters in the left hand column.

Is that so hard to accept/believe?

I have no problem with the assertion that the Book of Abraham was produced before the Book of Abraham manuscript. You seem to be backing off of what you claimed in the OP.

My point is simply that this chronology doesn't change the fact that for somebody who accepts the BoA as a translation of the papyri that Joseph Smith actually had in his posession, there are obvious reasons to presume that Abraham 1 begins on the scroll, immediately after the couch vignette.

[William Schryver]

I have no problem with the assertion that the Book of Abraham was produced before the Book of Abraham manuscript. You seem to be backing off of what you claimed in the OP.

??? I'm re-emphasizing it!

I have serious doubts that you have followed the argument from the very beginning.

<sigh>

My point is simply that this chronology doesn't change the fact that for somebody who accepts the BoA as a translation of the papyri that Joseph Smith actually had in his posession, there are obvious reasons to presume that Abraham 1 begins on the scroll, immediately after the couch vignette.

This thread is entitled "Book of Abraham/Book of Breathings Controversy." It was started to make the argument that the Abraham manuscripts scribed by Williams and Parrish are not the original translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham as has been argued by critics for 40+ years. You now seem to accept that. Good. I guess my work here is done for the day.

[William Schryver]

I have no problem with the assertion that the Book of Abraham was produced before the Book of Abraham manuscript.

I want to emphasize this again for all to see.

Analytics agrees with my argument.

Go buy your food storage folks. The world may very well end today.

[Jaybear]

Why bother. Analytic's position is clear. What he disputes is what you claim is axiomatic from this fact, or as he put it:

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.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Jaybear

[KevinG]

I almost got hit by a flying pig. What's going on?

[floatingboy]

Just to see if I understand correctly Will's main points:

1. BofA text was produced (by whatever means) prior to the EA/GAEL.

1a. This necessarily means that the latter was not connected to the Hor Book of Breathings.

2. The source for the BofA was not necessarily contained on the scroll, and if it was, we have no reason to believe that JS even knew where. Any attempts by his scribes at matching the BofA text with characters on the scroll are just their own musings, regardless of the fact that all scribes match to the same characters.

Is that about right?

[floatingboy]

One more point I think will has tried to make clear: the text of the BofA was received/produced/written/completed in early July of 1835. Is that right? What do the journal entries by JS in Oct. 1835 through at least Feb. of 1836 refer to when they mention work on translation of Egyptian characters from the papyrus?

[William Schryver]

Just to see if I understand correctly Will's main points:

1. BofA text was produced (by whatever means) prior to the EA/GAEL.

Correct.

1a. This necessarily means that the latter was not connected to the Hor Book of Breathings.

Not exactly. What it means is what I wrote above: "This thread is entitled 'Book of Abraham/Book of Breathings Controversy.' It was started to make the argument that the Abraham manuscripts scribed by Williams and Parrish are not the original translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham as has been argued by critics for 40+ years."

Analytics apparently now agrees with my argument. Pigs are on the wing.

2. The source for the BofA was not necessarily contained on the scroll, and if it was, we have no reason to believe that JS even knew where.

A satisfactory summary of my position, except that, as I indicated above, I am personally inclined to believe there was an Abraham text on the scroll, as indicated by historical references that support this conclusion, and supported by my research into the original length of the scroll of Hor.

Any attempts by his scribes at matching the BofA text with characters on the scroll are just their own musings, regardless of the fact that all scribes match to the same characters.

Two scribes tried to match characters from the Book of Breathings to the text of the Book of Abraham. Prior to that time, the Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts matched other characters to passages from the Book of Abraham. The overwhelming majority of those earlier characters were not, from what I can see, taken from the papyri. George Miller disagrees, but refuses to demonstrate his reasons why. Either way, we see that no one seemed to know where a BoA text was to be found on the papyri.

Edited to correct some minor errors.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[LeSellers]

Go buy your food storage folks. The world may very well end today.

We've had ours for years. Needed it, too, from time to time.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Actually, I don't think there is a clear disagreement between the two of you. Will is raising a strawman.

Will's criticism of your understanding of the source of the image in the BOA, is premised on an assumption of what you think Smith "believed".

By contrast, your observation only addresses what Smith purported or claimed. Smith's underlying belief is not germane to your observation.

You will note that to maintain a cogent argument, its important for Will to put that caveat into his criticism.

I fully concur with Will's conclusion that "there is no persuasive reason to conclude that Joseph Smith considered the Book of Breathings the source text for the Book of Abraham?" Don't you?

So what we have now is Jaybear (of all people) slyly and smarmily insinuating that Joseph Smith (of all people) might have made bad-faith assertions he did not believe to be true.

Jaybear: people who live in glass houses...

Regards,

Pahoran

[floatingboy]

so essentially no one knew where the BofA text was on the scroll, including JS. he received it by inspiration, independent of the scroll. it may have been on there, but that is irrelevant, since neither JS nor any of his scribes could possibly read it. all of the numerous mentions of a translation process that they were arduously engaged in were simply attempts by very linguistically curious men to decipher this dead system of writing, to satisfy their own curiosity, and to "read the scriptures in the language in which they were given". (JS Journal, Feb 4, 1836)

[William Schryver]

"George," Chris, or Andrew,

Am I to understand that you also believe the characters appearing on the Egyptian Counting document to have been taken from the papyri? If so, where can we find them?

Also, while I'm on the topic of non-Egyptian characters, I'll remind "George" (or Chris or Andrew) that I'm anxiously waiting to learn how it was William Phelps managed to magically produce the characters below, which he included in a letter to his wife in May 1835 (several weeks before the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, and then re-used, with different explanations, in the Egyptian Alphabet). Where do they appear on the papyri, and how did Phelps learn of them weeks before Michael Chandler came to Kirtland with his mummies and scrolls in tow?

[Mike Reed]

Still waiting for "George" to explain how William Phelps came up with these characters that allegedly came from papyri that didn't arrive in Kirtland until several weeks after he wrote these down in a letter to his wife, and that were then re-used (with different explanations) in the Egyptian alphabet.

I am pretty certain that George already stated (quite politely, in fact) that you must wait until MHA. I know that you, Bill Hamblin, et al, act as though you are entitled to other people's work. You aren't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"George," Chris, or Andrew,

Am I to understand that you also believe the characters appearing on the Egyptian Counting document to have been taken from the papyri? If so, where can we find them?

Also, while I'm on the topic of non-Egyptian characters, I'll remind "George" (or Chris or Andrew) that I'm anxiously waiting to learn how it was William Phelps managed to magically produce the characters below, which he included in a letter to his wife in May 1835 (several weeks before the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, and then re-used, with different explanations, in the Egyptian Alphabet). Where do they appear on the papyri, and how did Phelps learn of them weeks before Michael Chandler came to Kirtland with his mummies and scrolls in tow?

Crickets. Well, here is to hoping.

[wenglund]

Still waiting for "George" to explain how William Phelps came up with these characters that allegedly came from papyri that didn't arrive in Kirtland until several weeks after he wrote these down in a letter to his wife, and that were then re-used (with different explanations) in the Egyptian alphabet.

Welcome back Will, and good to read your scintillating thread.

I am stil recovering from eye surgery, so I must be brief. If I recall correctly, "George's" position isn't that the characters all came from the Joseph Smith Papyri, but that they were presumably derived from "Egyptian" sources, in part from Free-Masonry--though I could be wrong about this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 27, 2011 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am pretty certain that George already stated (quite politely, in fact) that you must wait until MHA. I know that you, Bill Hamblin, et al, act as though you are entitled to other people's work. You aren't.

This is quite a feat. I am not scholar but I think there is a problem in trying to find out a way to link these characters to the papyri.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Welcome back Will, and good to read your scintillating thread.

I am stil recovering from eye surgery, so I must be brief. If I recall correctly, "George's" position isn't that the characters came from the Joseph Smith Papyri, but that it was presumably derived from "Egyptian" sources, in part from Free-Masonry--though I could be wrong about this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does that not present a problem for the critics though? Of course I guess we will all have to wait for this.

[William Schryver]

I am pretty certain that George already stated (quite politely, in fact) that you must wait until MHA. I know that you, Bill Hamblin, et al, act as though you are entitled to other people's work. You aren't.

In the immortal words of at least a thousand Mormon critics: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Since Mike wants to play, I'll include him in this global invitation to critics to explain how it was William Phelps was able to include these six "Egyptian" characters in a letter to his wife in May 1835, and then again in his "Egyptian Alphabet" in July 1835, with all new "sounds" and "explanations". Were these characters derived, in some magical way, from the scroll of Hor?:

[wenglund]

so essentially no one knew where the BofA text was on the scroll, including JS. he received it by inspiration, independent of the scroll. it may have been on there, but that is irrelevant, since neither JS nor any of his scribes could possibly read it. all of the numerous mentions of a translation process that they were arduously engaged in were simply attempts by very linguistically curious men to decipher this dead system of writing, to satisfy their own curiosity, and to "read the scriptures in the language in which they were given". (JS Journal, Feb 4, 1836)

Isn't the quote above from JS in regards to the Hebrew classes he and other church members were taking at the time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Welcome back Will, and good to read your scintillating thread.

I am stil recovering from eye surgery, so I must be brief. If I recall correctly, "George's" position isn't that the characters all came from the Joseph Smith Papyri, but that they were presumably derived from "Egyptian" sources, in part from Free-Masonry--though I could be wrong about this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's not how I understand the claims that have been made on this thread by Andrew Cook and "George." If you're correct, my initial impression is to say that sounds like a plausible theory, although I'd like to see the evidence. I also still want to know why Phelps was thinking about "Egyptian" characters (and including them in a letter to his wife) several weeks prior to the arrival in Kirtland of Michael Chandler and his scrolls.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[stemelbow]

That's not how I understand the claims that have been made on this thread by Andrew Cook and "George." If you're correct, my initial impression is to say that sounds like a plausible theory, although I'd like to see the evidence. I also still want to know why Phelps was thinking about "Egyptian" characters (and including them in a letter to his wife) several weeks prior to the arrival in Kirtland of Michael Chandler and his scrolls.

Will,

are they considered Egyptian characters or did Phelps make them up?

[floatingboy]

Isn't the quote above from JS in regards to the Hebrew classes he and other church members were taking at the time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

very possibly so, wade. i didn't mean to represent it as referring exclusively to the papyri. he was/they were definitely attending hebrew classes concurrently with the work on the translation of the scrolls. i meant it as an example of his overall enthusiasm for the learning of ancient languages, and indeed this entry occurs amidst others that refer directly to the work of translation. the crux of my previous post is to make sure that i am correctly summarizing what i have gleaned from all of will's posts on this thread, and would like to see it confirmed and/or amended.