The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[David T]

You call a message board post “the latest scholarship”?

Says the individual who has presented ,explored, and argued for most of his findings for the public by means of message boards.

Edited October 26, 2011 by nackhadlow

[William Schryver]

Says the individual who has presented ,explored, and argued for most of his findings for the public by means of message boards.

I'm not the one who called a message board post "the latest scholarship."

If you have something substantive to contribute, please do. Otherwise, stay out of the thread.

[Kiviuq]

I’m a simple guy with a simple mind. When I read such debates with the use such subtle, nuanced vocabulary trying to persuade me I become suspicious. Sometimes things just are what they appear on the surface.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Kiviuq

[William Schryver]

I’m a simple guy with a simple mind. When I read such debates with the use such subtle, nuanced vocabulary trying to persuade me I become suspicious. Sometime things just are what they appear on the surface.

That is very similar to what I said to myself when I started examining the EA/GAEL and I realized that they were entirely dependent on the Book of Abraham already having been received!

Sometimes things just are what they appear to be on the surface.

ETA: Fortunately, when it comes to establishing the direction of dependency in terms of two texts, one of which clearly depends on the other, there are other tools and rules than can be brought to bear on the question. Dan McClellan demonstrates some elements of these tools and rules in this thread: Dependency of Abr. 1:2b-3

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[floatingboy]

Yes, you’re confusing two different things.

Am I thinking of the BofA manuscripts? Sorry for the ignorance. When you don't stay with a subject closely, it's easy to forget the details.

[William Schryver]

Am I thinking of the BofA manuscripts? Sorry for the ignorance. When you don't stay with a subject closely, it's easy to forget the details.

The EA/GAEL and the Abraham manuscripts are two very different set of manuscripts, produced at different points in time, and for different reasons. I think I explain very well the nature of the various manuscripts that comprise the Kirtland Egyptian Papers in Part 1 of my 2010 FAIR presentation, linked at the bottom of the OP.

[Analytics]

All the insertion of the phrase at Abr. 1:12 tells us is that a decision was made, at some point, to use the lion couch vignette as the introduction to the Book of Abraham. It tells us absolutely nothing about the source of the translated text of the Book of Abraham. You’re making unwarranted assumptions.

I don’t follow; what assumptions, unwarranted or otherwise, do you think I’m making? In verse 1, the text establishes that “I” is referring to “I, Abraham.” Knowing that "I" refers to Abraham himself, verse 12 plainly says that Abraham himself included a representation of the altar upon which he was almost murdered at the commencement of the record he was writing.

According to a straightforward reading of the unambiguous finalized translation, the original manuscript commences with a representation of the altar.

This straight-forward interpretation is consistent with Joseph Smith's claim that the BOA is a translation of some ancient Records that had fallen into his hands from the catacombs of Egypt, which are the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Analytics

[William Schryver]

I don’t follow; what assumptions, unwarranted or otherwise, do you think I’m making?

Based on your earlier posts, you are making the unwarranted assumption that Joseph Smith believed that the Book of Abraham was a translation of the Book of Breathings. To the extent the translation of the BoA occurred prior to the production of the EA/GAEL (and therefore, significantly prior to the production of the Abraham manuscripts) then there is no persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith believed that the BoA was a translation of the Book of Breathings text. Indeed, the picture that emerges from an analysis of all the evidence is that Joseph Smith, although he learned through revelation that a Book of Abraham text was somewhere on the scroll, did not know where on the scroll the Egyptian source text was found, just as he undoubtedly could not have identified the location of 3rd Nephi on the plates of Mormon.

In verse 1, the text establishes that “I” is referring to “I, Abraham.” Knowing that "I" refers to Abraham himself, verse 12 plainly says that Abraham himself included a representation of the altar upon which he was almost murdered at the commencement of the record he was writing.

According to a straightforward reading of the unambiguous finalized translation, the original manuscript commences with a representation of the altar.

You don't seem to be appreciating the import of the fact that the phrase in question is a late (as in 19th century) addition to the translated text. Quite contrary to what you seem to think to be the case, the inserted phrase in v. 12 does NOT unambiguously tell us that Abraham referenced the lion couch vignette, but rather that Joseph Smith referenced it. Those are two very different things. Furthermore, it is unwarranted to assume that simply because Joseph Smith chose to use the lion couch vignette as an illustration to the story does NOT mean that the text that immediately followed it on the scroll was the source text for his translation of the Book of Abraham. If, for example, the source text for the Book of Abraham immediately followed the Book of Breathings text, it would be just as correct for it to read "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." This is where the question of the original length of the scroll comes into play.

At any rate, all we can really confidently conclude from the evidence is that Joseph Smith chose to use the lion couch vignette to illustrate his translation of the Book of Abraham, and that he chose to place it at the beginning of that translation. It tells us nothing about the original disposition of the source text in relation to the illustration.

This straight-forward interpretation is consistent with Joseph Smith's claim that the BOA is a translation of some ancient Records that had fallen into his hands from the catacombs of Egypt, which are the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

This is another issue altogether, and one not covered by the scope of this thread.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

You don't seem to be appreciating the import of the fact that the phrase in question is a late (as in 19th century) addition to the translated text. Quite contrary to what you seem to think to be the case, the inserted phrase in v. 12 does NOT unambiguously tell us that Abraham referenced the lion couch vignette, but rather that Joseph Smith referenced it. Those are two very different things.

This phrase is in fact in the first finalized version of the translation, is it not? The assertion that it wasn’t there in a preliminary draft of the translation doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t purportedly say it in the finalized version.

At any rate, all we can really confidently conclude from the evidence is that Joseph Smith chose to use the lion couch vignette to illustrate his translation of the Book of Abraham, and that he chose to place it at the beginning of that translation. It tells us nothing about the original disposition of the source text in relation to the illustration.

I disagree. A plain reading of the finalized translation clearly purports that it was Abraham himself who claimed that the commencement of the original manuscript contained a representation of the altar upon which he was almost murdered. You are severely overstating the strength of your case to say that we can confidently reject this plain reading of the finalized text.

[William Schryver]

This phrase is in fact in the first finalized version of the translation, is it not? The assertion that it wasn’t there in a preliminary draft of the translation doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t purportedly say it in the finalized version.

I disagree. A plain reading of the finalized translation clearly purports that it was Abraham himself who claimed that the commencement of the original manuscript contained a representation of the altar upon which he was almost murdered. You are severely overstating the strength of your case to say that we can confidently reject this plain reading of the finalized text.

Analytics,

It is clear to me that you don't appreciate the significance of the fact that the phrase in question was an interlineal insertion in the earliest known manuscript we have of this portion of the Book of Abraham. OK, fine. Let's, for the sake of argument, allow that it was Abraham himself who wrote those words. Why do you (apparently) believe that the ancient connection between the lion couch vignette and Abr. 1:12 somehow establishes your assumption that Joseph Smith believed the translation of the Book of Abraham derived from the Book of Breathings? Have you failed to appreciate yet the fact that the lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not a single entity? Do you not yet appreciate the fact that, if the source text for the Book of Abraham was found after the Book of Breathings on the scroll, that the phrase in question ("I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record") would be equally correct?

Again, do you not understand that if the textual evidence demonstrates that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the EA/GAEL, then there is no persuasive reason to conclude that Joseph Smith considered the Book of Breathings the source text for the Book of Abraham? That, of course, is the entire point of this thread.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[Jaybear]

This phrase is in fact in the first finalized version of the translation, is it not? The assertion that it wasn’t there in a preliminary draft of the translation doesn’t mean that Abraham didn’t purportedly say it in the finalized version.

I disagree. A plain reading of the finalized translation clearly purports that it was Abraham himself who claimed that the commencement of the original manuscript contained a representation of the altar upon which he was almost murdered. You are severely overstating the strength of your case to say that we can confidently reject this plain reading of the finalized text.

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?

Edited October 26, 2011 by Jaybear

[William Schryver]

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.

Wrong. I'm not playing semantic games here. I'm stating unequivocally that, to the extent the textual evidence demonstrates that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the EA/GAEL, then there is no persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith associated his translation of the Book of Abraham with the Book of Breathings. For over 40 years, critics have claimed otherwise.

[Jaybear]

Wrong. I'm not playing semantic games here. I'm stating unequivocally that, to the extent the textual evidence demonstrates that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the EA/GAEL, then there is no persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith associated his translation of the Book of Abraham with the Book of Breathings. For over 40 years, critics have claimed otherwise.

Your argument is premised on the assumption that BOA is in fact a translation ("was received"), and not a sham.

Analytics observation supports a conclusion that it was a sham. Ergo, your argument does not and cannot disprove his observation.

[William Schryver]

Your argument is premised on the assumption that BOA is in fact a translation ("was received"), and not a sham.

Analytics observation supports a conclusion that it was a sham. Ergo, your argument does not and cannot disprove his observation.

No, my argument is absolutely not premised on that assumption. In fact, the argument is valid even if we assume Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. Ergo, you clearly don't understand the argument, so perhaps it would be best for you to stand aside and permit others to participate in this thread whilst you watch silently from the bleachers.

[Mortal Man]

Seriously? Lol. I always knew you were a funny guy, this is a real elbow bender.

There's Exodus as well, along with Antiquities of the Jews, Philosophy of a Future State, The Six Books of Proclus... etc.

[Jaybear]

No, my argument is absolutely not premised on that assumption. In fact, the argument is valid even if we assume Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham. Ergo, you clearly don't understand the argument, so perhaps it would be best for you to stand aside and permit others to participate in this thread whilst you watch silently from the bleachers.

Analytic's points are clear, concise and cogent. By contrast, your attempts to dispute his point are pendantic, turbid, and insulting.

If I don't understand your argument, its because you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping one gain understanding. On this issue, given that you are an apologist, that is sound strategy on your part.

[Analytics]

Analytics,

It is clear to me that you don't appreciate the significance of the fact that the phrase in question was an interlineal insertion in the earliest known manuscript we have of this portion of the Book of Abraham.

I guess not. How does the alleged fact that it was an interlineal insertion prove that “I” is referring to Joseph Smith and not “I, Abraham”? The assertion is a non sequitur.

OK, fine. Let's, for the sake of argument, allow that it was Abraham himself who wrote those words. Why do you (apparently) believe that the ancient connection between the lion couch vignette and Abr. 1:12 somehow establishes your assumption that Joseph Smith believed the translation of the Book of Abraham derived from the Book of Breathings? Have you failed to appreciate yet the fact that the lion couch vignette and the Book of Breathings are not a single entity? Do you not yet appreciate the fact that, if the source text for the Book of Abraham was found after the Book of Breathings on the scroll, that the phrase in question ("I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record") would be equally correct?

Touché. Verse 12 is consistent with any manuscript that commences with the representation of an altar. A manuscript that commences with a lion couch vignette, followed by the Book of Breathings and then the Book of Abraham fits that pattern, even though it would sure be odd if that were the case.

Again, do you not understand that if the textual evidence demonstrates that the Book of Abraham was received prior to the production of the EA/GAEL, then there is no persuasive reason to conclude that Joseph Smith considered the Book of Breathings the source text for the Book of Abraham? That, of course, is the entire point of this thread.

I disagree here. If Joseph Smith thought that the source of the Book of Abraham was a portion of the scroll other than the Book of Breathings, it would be bizarre for him to create a cipher linking the text of the Book of Abraham to a part of the scroll which he knew was not the part of the scroll from which he made the translation.

[Mortal Man]

Q: What's the relationship between the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings and the Book of Abraham?

A: The relationship is that the lion couch vignette was taken from the Hor Book of Breathings papyri which Joseph Smith acquired with the mummies he purchased. The details of these drawings, and the “translations” associated with them labeled as “explanations”, are directly referred to in the text of the Book of Abraham itself, in Abraham 3:12-14.

...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

-Abraham 1:12.

So we know from the text of the Book of Abraham itself that the source of the Book of Abraham is a record that commences with the lion couch vignette from the Hor Book of Breathings. I can only think of one candidate that matches this description.

Yup, Abraham 1:6-20 is Joseph's story of Facsimile 1. The facsimiles and the BoA go together like brick and mortar. That's why Joseph published them together. Any attempt to separate them is sheer folly.

[Mortal Man]

With almost no exceptions, the characters explained in the EA/GAEL documents do not appear on the papyri. None of the characters in the EA/GAEL are from the Book of Breathings document.

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

[Mortal Man]

My immediate question is, if what you say is true about the characters (with almost no exceptions) not appearing on the papyri, how could anyone have ever been of the belief that there was any connection between the EA/GAEL and the papyri?

William typically assumes that no one in his audience will bother to look at the documents for himself. The EAG/GAEL characters do indeed appear on the Hor papyrus, both in complete form and broken up into their constituent graphemes. The character, for example (an Egyptian "w", originally present when JS had the papyri) is translated as KiAhbroam, Kiahbrahoam, Ahbroam, Ah brah-oam etc, depending on degree, in various EAG/GAEL manuscripts.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Mortal Man

[William Schryver]

It's called Genesis.

As part of my analysis of the Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts, I performed a study of all the substantial words found in the documents--looking for instances of those words in Chapters 1 - 5 of the Book of Abraham and in Genesis chapters 12 and 15 (the two chapters in Genesis that correspond to the material in the Book of Abraham). "Substantial Words" were pretty much all the words except for words like "a", "the", "to", etc.; articles and conjunctions were omitted; most of the prepositions (I didn't omit, for example, "below" because I felt it had "substantive" meaning). At any rate, at the following link is a .pdf file created from the graph produced as a result of this study. It demonstrates that the Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts were based largely on Abraham chapters 1, 2, and 3, but not 4 and 5, nor Genesis 12 and 15. Those who are interested are free to download and examine the graph (google docs doesn't let you do a rotate, so you'll have to download it and pull it up in Adobe Reader in order to rotate it.)

Substantial Word Graph

[William Schryver]

William typically assumes that no one in his audience will bother to look at the documents for himself. The EAG/GAEL characters do indeed appear on the Hor papyrus, both in complete form and broken up into their constituent graphemes. The character, for example (an Egyptian "w", originally present when JS had the papyri) is translated as KiAhbroam, Kiahbrahoam, Ahbroam, Ah brah-oam etc, depending on degree, in various EAG/GAEL manuscripts.

No they don't, unless you arbitrarily start breaking up characters and then compare them to other, arbitrarily broken up characters from the papyri.

I am fully willing to have anyone with a lick of common sense compare the characters from the EA/GAEL to the characters on the papyri. With very few exceptions, the EA/GAEL characters are not to be found on the papyri. What Andrew Cook, Chris Smith, and Christopher Bartholomew want you to believe is an act of violence against the intelligence of the average person. I am simply stunned that anyone is taking seriously what they are trying to do.

I challenge them to post images of the characters from the EA/GAEL and the papyri, and then demonstrate how those images are to be found on the papyri, in order that people may judge for themselves.

ETA: Andrew gives you the example of a single character among the "very few" that I consent might come from the papyri. Have him do that with all 69 to which explanations have been given in the EA/GAEL. Have him do it with 10 or 20 of them. I want to see it. I want others to see it.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Analytic's points are clear, concise and cogent. By contrast, your attempts to dispute his point are pendantic, turbid, and insulting.

If I don't understand your argument, its because you are more interested in obfuscation and disparagement than actually helping one gain understanding. On this issue, given that you are an apologist, that is sound strategy on your part.

What a surprise! Jaybear thinks the ex-Mormon arguments are clear, concise, and cogent, and that the active Mormon arguments are "pendantic" (sic), turbid, and insulting.

I'm willing to have the audience be the judge. I'm sure most of the apostates will agree with you.

[William Schryver]

Yup, Abraham 1:6-20 is Joseph's story of Facsimile 1. The facsimiles and the BoA go together like brick and mortar. That's why Joseph published them together. Any attempt to separate them is sheer folly.

You're missing the point as badly as Analytics. The issue is whether or not Joseph Smith believed the translation of the Book of Abraham corresponded to the Book of Breathings. That's been the argument the critics have been advancing for 40+ years. That's the argument I'm disputing here.

Try reading the thread topic.

Edited October 26, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No they don't, unless you arbitrarily start breaking up characters and then compare them to other, arbitrarily broken up characters from the papyri.

I am fully willing to have anyone with a lick of common sense compare the characters from the EA/GAEL to the characters on the papyri. With very few exceptions, the EA/GAEL characters are not to be found on the papyri. What Andrew Cook, Chris Smith, and Christopher Bartholomew want you to believe is an act of violence against the intelligence of the average person. I am simply stunned that anyone is taking seriously what they are trying to do.

I challenge them to post images of the characters from the EA/GAEL and the papyri, and then demonstrate how those images are to be found on the papyri, in order that people may judge for themselves.

ETA: Andrew gives you the example of a single character among the "very few" that I consent might come from the papyri. Have him do that with all 69 to which explanations have been given in the EA/GAEL. Have him do it with 10 or 20 of them. I want to see it. I want others to see it.

I was just going to ask for this. I would like a demonstration of at least 20 characters. Sine 20 is not even 1/2 and that would show pretty good evidence of what they are peddling.

He Will, all your friends are here.