Missing Scroll Theory

[Xander]

I previously argued that the apologetic argument for a missing scroll is irrelevant because the vast majority of historical references point us directly to extant papyri. Wade and others responded by cutting and pasting old apologetic arguments that have already been refuted, albeit without their knowledge. They also missed the point that no one has ever argued that nothing is missing. I promised Wade I would respond this weekend, so here goes.

And, when you speak of "virtually all historic and textual evidence," do you include in your list the two KEP notebooks (one marked "Valuable Discovery"), and facsimiles 2 and 3? What do also you include in your list?

Wade, I'm speaking of all manuscripts relating to the papyri. There is no reason to expect every page of the GAEL to be taken from the Joseph Smith papyri, because the purpose of the GAEL was to create a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, which would naturally involve data not included in the Book of Abraham papyrus. For example, there is no reason to expect the Egyptian numbering system to be included in a Book of Abraham, but that is precisely what we’d expect to find in an Egyptian Grammar. Besides, Will already argued that the “meaning and purpose” of the GAEL, is that it was intended to be a ciphering project to encode scriptures. If you accept this, then there is no reason to expect it to have anything to do with the papyrus, or even the Egyptian language at all. This is why Schryver's video relies on the baseless assumptions that Egyptian doesn't really mean Egyptian (they really mean "secret code") and translation doesn't really mean translation (it means "enciphering"), explanation doesn't really mean explanation (it means "substitute value") and Grammar doesn't really mean Grammar (apparently that was to throw off anyone looking for a Mormon cipher key).

When I say "manuscript evidence" I am speaking more specifically of those manuscripts purporting to be a translation of the Book of Abraham and which also contain corresponding Egyptian symbols. Within the KEP are several manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, transcribed by various scribes employed by Joseph Smith. The Egyptian symbols within these manuscripts all derive from the Book of Breathings, with the exception of a few which were "restored" via revelation. William West’s 1837 description is further evidence that the source for the Book of Abraham is the deteriorated Book of Breathings text, because he says,"These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved.” So contrary to the apologists, the roll involved in the translation wasn’t “perfectly preserved.” There were portions missing which needed to be restored, and that fits the description of the Breathings Text. We also know that deteriorated portions of a scroll tend to appear at the outer edge, which is precisely where the Book of Breathings and Facsimile #1 are located. This runs contrary to Gee’s supposition that the real Book of Abraham text was towards the inner portion.

Joseph Smith’s closest confidants were involved in this project so the argument that they all had no idea that these “irrelevant scraps” - from which they were transcribing Egyptian characters in strenuous detail - wasn’t the source of the Book of Abraham, is simply untenable. You first have to explain why anyone, let alone Joseph Smith’s closest associates, would overlook the so-called missing, “beautiful long roll” and assume some irrelevant scraps were the source for the Book of Abraham, especially when Joseph Smith had spent months showing and explaining the papyri collection to anyone who wanted to see. Thus far, the apologists haven’t even tried to tackle that problem.

Actually, here is what is reported on FAIRwiki: "Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus) Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly Facsimile 3—which didn't survive) is incomplete."

Yes, I'm well aware of Gee's claims. But I'm not really interested in arguing whether or not “something” is missing. That has never been the issue, and I can't think of a single critic who ever argued that we currently have everything Joseph Smith once possessed. So this is essentially a straw man. The point is that there is no reason to believe any of this “missing” material was used to produce the Book of Abraham, which is the grand theory designed to save Joseph Smith's credibility as translator. As LDS scholars during the papyri’s rediscovery agreed, there is “every indication” that the source for the Book of Abraham is among the extant materials.

It goes on to cite Dr. Nibley as saying: "We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.”

Do you deny that only fragments of 2 out of the five scrolls are extant?

I deny that there were five entire scrolls, yes. Not that it really matters, but the evidence for it must be something more than John Gee’s say so. I’ve seen too many instances where Gee manipulates historical data to get it to suggest what he wants it to. This isn’t just my opinion; it is an established fact that makes him untrustworthy on this subject. He did the same trick with the KEP photos as well as the Seyffarth citation. I think that if there were five scrolls, then there wouldn't be so many eye witnesses referring to only two rolls + extra scraps. You know, people like Phelps and Cowdery who were intimately involved with Joseph Smith and his work on the project. In December 1835, when Cowdery published his account in the Messenger and Advocate, he mentions only two rolls. When Phelps mentions the records to his wife in a letter of 1835, he only mentions two rolls. You’d think something like three extra scrolls wouldn’t have slipped their minds. This is why apologists are careful to downplay their descriptions and instead focus on ambiguous accounts coming from tourists many years later. Schryver, via Gee, tried to use Charlotte Haven’s account as evidence for missing papyri, and I’ll address this in a minute.

Do you deny that the portion of the papyrus containing Facsimile 2 is missing?

No. Why would I? It has nothing to do with my point.

Do you deny that the portion of the papyrus that likely contained Facsimile 3 is missing?

No. This line of question is avoiding my argument entirely. Again, and I repeat for all those who just want to relay apologetic articles from FAIR and FARMS. The argument is not that we have everything Joseph Smith possessed. The argument is that we have strong reasons to believe the source for the Book of Abraham is among the extant papyri. If the missing materials are irrelevant to the Book of Abraham, then it doesn’t really matter how long this scroll was.

Could you please point me to where on the extant papyri I may find the numerous characters copied into the two notebooks (Egyptian Mss. # 6 & 7) as well as Egyptian Mss. #8 and #9?

Why would we expect them to be there? That symbols from the “wrong scroll” would appear in any of these manuscripts, is significant and must be explained by apologists; not explained away, using absolutely baseless theories about ciphers or whatever their imaginations conjure up. The critics are dealing with the evidence and what we know to be true, whereas the apologists are constantly entertaining hypothetical possibilities that run contrary to what we know.

Across what proportion of the two rooms in the Mansion House would you estimate the extant papyri would cover?

There is no reason to accept Nibley lore as evidence. There is no evidence supporting it and plenty riding against it. Why do some folks immediately take for granted anything Nibley or Gee say? Nibley's story has been addressed dozens of times over the past decade. Metcalfe dealt with it way back in 2003 at ZLMB, and since his is perhaps the best response, I’ll go ahead and provide it here:

Nibley provided no reference in his Dialogue essay, but his assertion is almost certainly a mischaracterization of a recollection attributed to Joseph F. Smith (son of Hyrum Smith) and related by Nibley in the Improvement Era and his essay "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham":

As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered "as if it were yesterday" his "Uncle Joseph" down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can be easily spread out on the top of a small desk, without straining the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have -H. Nibley, "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham".

Joseph F.'s reminiscence most closely resembles what Nibley describes in Dialogue. If I'm correct, then we can conclude that in Dialogue Hugh misidentified the Nauvoo House as the "Mansion House" and mistakenly depicted the papyri running through two rooms rather than scattered on the floor of one room. If I'm not correct, then I have no idea what Nibley is referring to in his undocumented remark.

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

Like I said, there is no good reason to accept Nibley’s story.

In contravention to your point, and in addition to what I mentioned above, and will also mention below, I would direct the interested reader to the current discussion on the Scroll Length.

Yes, a most informative exchange, if you can sift through the bravado and rhetoric.

According to The Cleveland Whig (March 25th, 1835), in an article regarding Chandler's exhibit, the following description was given of several of the papyri: "No. 1...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....There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written -- its character and import involved in like mystery."

Are you supposing these descriptions easily fit the extant papyrus?

Yes, these descriptions easily fit the extant papyri:

This is an old apologetic presented by Jeff Lindsay years ago. I’m surprised to see people are still using it. If they had read even John Gee’s “Guide to the Papyri” they would have noticed the measurements fit this description.

Later, in the Painsville Telegraph (march 27, 1835) this was recorded regarding the papyri: "There was found with this female person 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 the epitaph; ink black and red; many female figures....No. 2...female; supposed age 40....found with a roll as No. 1, filled with hieroglyphics, rudely executed...No. 3...Male, very old, say 80, had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2..."

Can all three of these rolls be easily accounted for with the extant papyrus?

Yes. Though you’re using a reference describing the collection months before it arrived to Joseph Smith.

Continued...

Edited November 19, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Do the extant papyrus contain both red and black ink?

Yes.

Do the extant papyri fragments contain many female figures?

Yes.

In the Autobiography of Sarah Studevant Leavitt, the entry dated Sept. 1, 1835, was mentioned: "We went into the upper rooms, saw the Egyptian mummies, the writing that was said to be written in Abraham's day, Jacob's ladder being pictured on it..."

Could you point me to where in the extant papyri I might find Jacob's ladder pictured?

Yes. In fact we have a more detailed description of Jacob’s ladder from Henry Caswall, who wrote in his book:

Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."

Here is the image they are referring to:

continued...

[Xander]

Here is this recorded in the History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.348 - 351, dated Dec. 31, 1835 (this is likely and extract taken from a letter written by Cowdery): "On opening the coffins, he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, was something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which, when examined, proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c, were found with others of the mummies." Here we have indication of two rolls and two or three other small pieces of papyrus."

Yes, contrary to Gee’s “five rolls.” The two rolls were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph, and then there were scraps including the hypocephalus (Facsimile 2).

Can all these things easily be accounted for in the extant papyri? What about the astronomical calculations and epitaphs?

Yes. Facsimile 2 was explained by Joseph Smith mostly in astronomical terms. Mystery solved.

In a more complete rendering of the Cowdery letter in the Messenger and Advocate of Dec., 1835, Mr. Chandler certified that "The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting." Cowdery goes on to explain: "The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representation of the god head--three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage. The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper.... Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll...The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning. Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit. But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture."

Could you show me where I might find all of this on the extant papyri?

The image most likely referring to the three-in-one God head is this image which looks like a figure with three heads, coming from JSP IV:

The walking serpent is clearly this image from JSP VI:

Enoch’s pillar is most likely this image from JSP VI:

And Abraham holding his two scepters can be found in JSP III:

Notice "Abraham" (Osris) to the far left holding two scepters in his hands, the fifteen figures above him representing the twelve tribes along with the kingdoms of the earth. Of course much of this is just baseless interpretation Joseph Smith came up with and then shared it with his followers, but we can see from the available papyrus how these images reasonably correspond to the images on the extant papyri.

continued...

Edited November 19, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Don’t forget the most important description comes years later from William Appleby. This is an account mostly ignored by apologists. It is interesting because after many years, the description mirrors that of previous descriptions, suggesting the whole time that all of these people saw the same thing:

To day I paid Br Joseph a visit. Saw the Rolls of papyrus and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph that was sold in Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language with the exception of a little Hebrew. I believe they give a description of some of the scenes in Ancient Egypt, of their worship, their Idol gods, etc. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black inks. There is a perceptible difference, between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe. There are representations of men, beasts, Birds, Idols and oxen attached to a kind of plough, a female guiding it.

This can easily be identified in JSP II:

Appleby continues:

Also the serpent when he beguiled Eve. He appears with two legs, erect in form and appearance of man. But his head in the form, and representing the Serpent, with his forked tongue extended.

Again we get the walking serpent description. As I said above, this is easily represented in this image from the same scroll:

There are likewise representations of an Alter erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.

I think we can all agree that this is easily identified as Fascimile #1:

A Celestial globe with the planet Kolob of first creation of the supreme being - a planet of light, - which planet - makes a revolution once in a thousand years, - Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed.

We know this is from Facsimile #2 because he quotes Joseph Smith’s interpretation of figure #1, almost word for word. Here is figure #1 with the celestial globe:

And here is Facsimile #2. The original is not extant but the contents are preserved via copying and woodcuts:

Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King's throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown on his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince - a principle waiter, and a black slave of the King. A genealogy of the Mummies, and the Epitaphs and their deaths, etc., etc., are also distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham."

This is obviously a reference to Facsimile #3, which is not extant, though preserved in images:

So now that these numerous historic references do not point to missing papyri, let’s address the latest apologetic argument presented by William Schryver. In May of 2009, the same month in which he broadcast to the forums that the First Presidency of the Church had approved of his upcoming article about the length of the Hor papyrus, (which still hasn’t appeared anywhere in print) he wrote what appeared to be an article prepared for publication. He posted it on this forum and said his piece required the help of six other apologists. His conclusion was that,

“The contemporary eyewitness reports of a ‘long roll’ are confirmed.”

However, upon critical examination, it became immediately clear that William’s apologetic relied strictly on one source: the account of Charlotte Haven. He claimed that there were at least four eye-witness accounts “confirming” the length of a “long roll,” but after nearly three years he has failed to back up his claim. His piece consisted mainly of citations lifted from John Gee’s publications, along with an ellipses-ridden synopsis of Haven’s account. So I looked up the source, which he admittedly had not even acquired, and provided it in my review of his article. Here is what Haven had to say in context from Overland Monthly, "A Girl's Letters from Nauvoo," pp.623-624:

...we called on Joseph's mother, passing the site of the Nauvoo House, a spacious hotel, the first floor only laid. It is like the Temple in being erected on the tithe system, and when finished will surpass in splendor any hotel in the State. Here Joseph and his heirs for generations are to have apartments free of expense, and they think the crowned heads of Europe will rusticate beneath its roof. Madam Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting the mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know.

Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said, "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was, "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sancrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament - and it might have been for anything we knew - but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who - the serpent, I mean - was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

"They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence. The Judge slipped a coin in her hand which she received smilingly, with a pleasant, "Come again," as we bade her goodbye.

As much as apologists rely on the Haven account, you’d think they at least provide the context, just once. It is a very interesting account, but the only thing the apologists focus on is the phrase “long roll of manuscript.” Will claimed that this comment gives us the “length” of the roll. However, “long” doesn’t give us the length just as “heavy” doesn’t tell us the weight. The fact is this is all relative to her experience. One page might appear “long” to Haven’s perception, simply because she was comparing it to the other scraps. But from her account we are again introduced to the same papyrus that has been described in two other accounts, and we know this because she references the walking serpent with Eve. So we know that when she said "long" she isn't referring to some mysterious text, because she describes the same stuff we've heard before, on the papyrus we already have.

So the point here is simply this. Over the span of eight years we have numerous accounts of eye-witnesses describing the Joseph Smith Papyri. We see a consistency in that they almost always seem to be describing images that are easily or reasonably identifiable on he extant papyri. The few exceptions are with the facsimiles, which have been preserved by copies or woodcutting. Now if Gee is correct, and there are one to three more scrolls of 15-40 feet, then this means what we have today accounts for roughly 1-5% of the whole collection. If he later proposes 200 ft of missing text, that fraction becomes much smaller. Now what are the chances that all of these historical accounts would just happen to always describe this tiny fraction of the whole? It isn't logical unless they were that much more valuable and important (i.e. the source of ancient scripture). Thus, the more missing papyri the apologists propose, the bigger their problem becomes. This is because they will always need to explain why there was so much extra papyri that no one ever claimed to see, even Joseph Smith's closest associates.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Incidentally, Chris Smith addresses the "Mansion House" tale in his published paper “That Which Is Lost”: The Joseph Smith Papyri and the Source of the Book of Abraham:

The claim attributed to President Smith is that one of the papyrus scrolls, “when unrolled on the floor, extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.”[1] This has been cited as evidence that after the extant papyrus fragments had been mounted and framed there was still a very long, intact scroll in the prophet’s possession.[2] But this quote is known only from a casual comment by Hugh Nibley, who heard it from Preston Nibley, who heard it from President Smith, who was recalling a time when he was five years old or younger. And in addition to its rather incredible provenance, it differs substantially from Hugh Nibley’s earlier telling of the story, which had President Smith remember “Uncle Joseph” seated on the floor of the Nauvoo House with “Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him.”[3] Like the “one that got away,” this tale seems to have taken on new proportions in Hugh Nibley’s memory.

[1] Nibley cites no source for this assertion, but it is safe to assume that it refers to the recollection of Joseph F. Smith that Nibley had cited earlier the same year. Hugh W. Nibley, “Phase One,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (1968): 101.

[2] John Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors,” FARMS Review of Books 4, no. 1 (1992): 106 fn 36.

[3] Hugh W. Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part I. Challenge and Response,” Improvement Era 71, no. 3 (March 1968): 17.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Xander

[Peppermint Patty]

Thanks for your hard work and research in this area, Mr. Graham. It was a very interesting read. Might even be a game changer.

I admit that I know very little about the BoA. It's been fun and interesting learning.

[why me]

If Joseph Smith were a fraudster, why would he need to write the book of abraham? I have to admit the book is a good read. It is well written and full of information. But could he write such a book and why would he? i don't think that he needed such a book for his fraud. And so, what were his motives?

[wenglund]

Hi Kevin,

I appreciate you getting back with me and answering my questions. I vaguely recall seeing much of this in Michael Marquardts book.

And, I think I understand better what you were asking. You put it more intelligibly when your said; "When I say 'manuscript evidence' I am speaking more specifically of those manuscripts purporting to be a translation of the Book of Abraham and which also contain corresponding Egyptian symbols. "

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are essentially arguing that as evinced in the Phelps, Williams, and Parrish Abr. Mss., these scribes, and perhaps Joseph Smith, believed that the Book of Abraham may be found on what is now the extant portions of the papyri, and as such, whatever portions may be missing, are irrelevant.

This assumes two things; 1) that the correlation between Egyptian Characters with BoA text in the several Mss. means these men believed the BoA text is a decipher of those Egyptian Characters, and 2) that these men were correct about the correlation.

There is reason to question both assumptions, which then leaves the door open to reasonably considering the missing portions of the papyri as a source for the BoA. In the next several days I will posit those reasons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

Well done.

One quick reminder Kevin, once you bring "apologists" into the discussion to describe a group of people instead of using their individual work, everyone else is free to do the same with "anti-Mormon". I hope you will keep your threads under control by not inviting this.

[Xander]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are essentially arguing that as evinced in the Phelps, Williams, and Parrish Abr. Mss., these scribes, and perhaps Joseph Smith, believed that the Book of Abraham may be found on what is now the extant portions of the papyri, and as such, whatever portions may be missing, are irrelevant.

Yes.

This assumes two things; 1) that the correlation between Egyptian Characters with BoA text in the several Mss. means these men believed the BoA text is a decipher of those Egyptian Characters, and 2) that these men were correct about the correlation.

A decipher? I think "translation" is the better word to use here.

My position assumes these men were close enough to Joseph Smith and his papyri-related projects to know which roll pertained to the Book of Abraham. If they wouldn't know which roll represented the Book of Abraham, then who would? Can you tell me why this is an unreasonable assumption? LDS scholar Samuel Brown has published on this subject and he argues that at the very least, Joseph Smith supervised the project. This presents a huge hurdle for those wishing to distance or divorce the Prophet from the project. I think we can all agree that Joseph Smith had a good idea which scroll pertained to Abraham and Joseph, so if he was involved with it in any way, then it is safe to assume he would have corrected their misunderstanding, had they been using the wrong scroll.

There is reason to question both assumptions, which then leaves the door open to reasonably considering the missing portions of the papyri as a source for the BoA. In the next several days I will posit those reasons.

I've yet to see any valid reasons to question these assumptions, either in publication or on the internet. Schryver has tried to revive Nibley's "the scribes did it" theory to some extent, but he never provided his evidence, always alluding to some future publication. He just asserted that there is a mountain of evidence implicating W.W. Phelps as the man behind the KEP. He presented Phelps' letter to his wife as his primary piece of evidence, but once it was shown to him that the "pure language" mentioned in that letter derived from a much earlier revelation by Joseph Smith, he backed out and told everyone to wait for his publication. We know it was Joseph Smith who provided translations of the "Pure Language," not Phelps.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with. But remember, it isn't just the manuscript evidence that makes the critical position the most reasonable position. Keep in mind also that the critical view was the standard view among LDS scholars when the papyri were rediscovered in 1967. It was only after they realized the translations didn't match the Book of Abraham, that they immediately started to refocus their efforts, and changed directions in order to come up with other theories for the source for the Book of Abraham.

The critical position is also driven by the plethora of historical evidence listed above. There are something like a dozen accounts spanning an eight year period, and not a single account can be said to refer to anything "missing" (with the exceptions of the facsimiles and a scroll fragment copied in Egyptian manuscript #6).

There is also the fact that the Church published Facsimile #1 along with the Book of Abraham translation, indicating that this is the scroll from which the Book of Abraham from translated. Klaus Baer demonstrated that Facsimile #1 was cut away from JSP XI, which is the papyrus corresponding to the translation manuscripts found in the KEP. So we know this is part of that same roll, and so it makes perfect sense that the Church publish it beside the BoA translations. We know that Facsimile #3 appeared at the end of the roll as well. So we can identify what was on that roll in four important segments: the begining (Facsimile #1), middle (JSP X and JSP XI) and the end (Facsimile #3). For those interested in studying this subject further, Robert Ritner's new release "THE JOSEPH SMITH EGYPTIAN PAPYRI: A COMPLETE EDITION" is a must read.

Perhaps most importantly, Abraham 1:12-16 refers explicitly to Facsimile #1 at the "commencement" of the record. For these reasons, it seems Gee realizes the futility in trying to argue the source for the Book of Abraham was on a different scroll entirely. This is why it is important for him to make this particular roll, as long as possible. He is trying to make room for a Book of Abraham text, but then he has the burden of trying to explain why a book of scripture of this magnitude would appear in the middle of a funerary text.

So I just wanted to remind everyone that the critical view doesn't just hang on a couple of assumptions about what some scribes believed they were doing. The critical position, which was once the universal position, is supported by a mountain of evidence presented in the extant papyri, the historical accounts describing them, published LDS scripture, textual evidence in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and his scribes, etc.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Kevin,

You and I agree that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts represent a translation--i.e. there is a translational relationship between the Egyptian characters and the English text.

Where we disagree is whether that translation takes the form of deciphering or enciphering. I view the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as an extension of the EA/GAEL project, and given the many arguments I have presented against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri (see the other thread on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers), the same arguments, for the most part, apply to the 1835 Abr. Mss. And, since I don't' view them as a deciphering--meaning that I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God, then to me the BoA was translated from some other portion of the papyrus, and therefore the issue of missing papyri is relevant to my point of view.

That you may have a different opinion, is fine for you, but my reasoning isn't based on your opinion, but mine.

Even if one were to believe the 1835 Abr. Mss represent a deciphered translation, one may also conclude that Phelps, Williams, Parrish, and perhaps Joseph, were incorrect in assuming that the revelatory deciphering was derived from the characters represented in the Abr. Mss and the extant portion of the papyri, but rather from some other part of the papyri. This then would make relevant the missing portion of the scrolls.

In short, while you may reasonably view things in a way that would render irrelevant the issue of missing portions of the papyri, there are at least two other reasonable ways that people may view things where this issue is relevant.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

If Joseph Smith were a fraudster, why would he need to write the book of abraham? I have to admit the book is a good read. It is well written and full of information. But could he write such a book and why would he? i don't think that he needed such a book for his fraud. And so, what were his motives?

It is jumping to conclusions to assume that just because Smith was wrong about the Book of Abraham being the writings of Abraham, that he is therefore a fraud. The evidence seems to suggest that Smith really believed these writings were from Abraham. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken such a risk in producing the Book of Abraham, knowing that the papyri would almost certainly later be subject to serious academic scrutiny.

[jskains]

It is jumping to conclusions to assume that just because Smith was wrong about the Book of Abraham being the writings of Abraham, that he is therefore a fraud. The evidence seems to suggest that Smith really believed these writings were from Abraham. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken such a risk in producing the Book of Abraham, knowing that the papyri would almost certainly later be subject to serious academic scrutiny.

It's also jumping to conclusions to assume he was wrong on the text. I think most folks familiar with the BoA believe the Book of Abraham came first through revelation and that the KEP, etc. was a project to decider what he received.

So the missing papyrus theory does have merit if we believe the KEP was a noisy extraneous project.

And again, if KEP was so important, why was it not such a major part of the Church? I'd be more concerned of the KEP were canonized. But it wasn't at all in any form. None of it was.

JMS

[why me]

It is jumping to conclusions to assume that just because Smith was wrong about the Book of Abraham being the writings of Abraham, that he is therefore a fraud. The evidence seems to suggest that Smith really believed these writings were from Abraham. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken such a risk in producing the Book of Abraham, knowing that the papyri would almost certainly later be subject to serious academic scrutiny.

I have no idea that he was wrong. But I do know that he had no reason to risk his supposed fraud by including more scripture or by taking more risks. Also, the people involved seemed to have been rather impressed with the book. And the book of abraham is a good read filled with interesting information. Also, what would have been his motive in producing this document, if he were a fraud? I see no motive.

[why me]

It's also jumping to conclusions to assume he was wrong on the text. I think most folks familiar with the BoA believe the Book of Abraham came first through revelation and that the KEP, etc. was a project to decider what he received.

So the missing papyrus theory does have merit if we believe the KEP was a noisy extraneous project.

And again, if KEP was so important, why was it not such a major part of the Church? I'd be more concerned of the KEP were canonized. But it wasn't at all in any form. None of it was.

JMS

What is often overlooked by Kevin and other critics is the motive behind Joseph when they call him a fraudster. He certainly was not that successful with his fraud especially in the beginning. And it seems that this 'fraud' caused him and his marriage a lot of hardship as he and emma were forced to move throughout the marriage. Not to mention a good tar and feathering during the early years. Also, there is a letter to emma where he imagines giving up his calling and going with emma somewhere to escape all the madness. But he continued on. He was a strange 'fraudster' and then when we consider the witnesses and their own testimony, well, early mormonism was certainly a strange 'fraud'.

[Brade]

It is jumping to conclusions to assume that just because Smith was wrong about the Book of Abraham being the writings of Abraham, that he is therefore a fraud.

I think you're right that Smith's being wrong about the Book of Abraham doesn't entail that he is a fraud. I do think, however, it weighs against Smith's claims to be a prophet/translator such that it makes it more difficult to justify belief that he is a prophet/translator.

[wenglund]

While the question whether Joseph was a fraud or not may be of interest, it is more than a little tangential to the question of this thread--i.e. the missing scrolls. In order to keep this discussion manageable, may I respectfully ask that the question of fraud be taken to its own thread?

And, just in case Kevin may have missed this, let me repeat my earlier response:

Kevin,

You and I agree that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts represent a translation--i.e. there is a translational relationship between the Egyptian characters and the English text.

Where we disagree is whether that translation takes the form of deciphering or enciphering. I view the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as an extension of the EA/GAEL project, and given the many arguments I have presented against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri (see the other thread on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers), the same arguments, for the most part, apply to the 1835 Abr. Mss. And, since I don't' view them as a deciphering--meaning that I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God, then to me the BoA was translated from some other portion of the papyrus, and therefore the issue of missing papyri is relevant to my point of view.

That you may have a different opinion, is fine for you, but my reasoning isn't based on your opinion, but mine.

Even if one were to believe the 1835 Abr. Mss represent a deciphered translation, one may also conclude that Phelps, Williams, Parrish, and perhaps Joseph, were incorrect in assuming that the revelatory deciphering was derived from the characters represented in the Abr. Mss and the extant portion of the papyri, but rather from some other part of the papyri. This then would make relevant the missing portion of the scrolls.

In short, while you may reasonably view things in a way that would render irrelevant the issue of missing portions of the papyri, there are at least two other reasonable ways that people may view things where this issue is relevant.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

hi wade

i admit that i haven't read through all of your posts concerning the subject of the KEP, but i have watched will's video about the direction of dependence (i think that is the terminology used). i, for one, don't have a hard time accepting that the scribes were trying to "learn" to translate or something along those lines. i find it quite feasible that the text for the BofA, once recorded, was then taken by these scribes as a source for reverse-engineering the characters, so to speak. in other words, i don't have a problem with the idea that the KEP were produced after the text of the BofA was recorded. the question that remains for me is, why (if i am recalling correctly) do the different manuscripts agree on the breaks in texts and their seeming correspondence with the characters in the margins? does this mean (to you) that they all agreed beforehand that those chunks of texts corresponded with each character? (whether or not they were deciphering or enciphering seems not to matter, since they chunks still correspond, regardless of intent.) if this is the case, what would be the purpose of writing it down in multiple copies by multiple people? an exercise in penmanship? on the flip side of the coin, if it's just a superfluous project carried out by curious scribes, why would they all agree? if each were trying to figure it out, wouldn't there be more variation in which characters correspond to what text? wouldn't there be more crossing out and re-writing?

forgive me if the answers to these questions are obvious to those more versed on the subject.

[floatingboy]

I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God

if you can, please summarize why that is.

Edited November 21, 2011 by floatingboy

[floatingboy]

wade, in another current thread, you say:

"...even were the characters derived in sequence from the Sensen papyrus, and were written first before the English text, then I would think that one may just as easily assume a correlation of enciphered translation than deciphered translation, that is if one assumes a translation correlation at all."

by "enciphered translation", you mean that they were arbitrarily assigning that paragraph to a specific character? to what end?

[wenglund]

The question that remains for me is, why (if i am recalling correctly) do the different manuscripts agree on the breaks in texts and their seeming correspondence with the characters in the margins?

I haven't studied the 1835 Abr. Mss. that closely as yet because the focus of my research thus far has been on the EA's and the GAEL.

I am just now beginning to look into them, and part of the problem I am having is all that I currently have access to is what was published in Michael Marquardts book on the Egyptian Papers, where the graphics are very poor and where the Abraham manuscripts in Willard Richard's handwriting are missing.

So, at this point I can't speak knowledgeably about how well all of the characters line up with paragraph breaks.

What I can tell you is that the Phelps portion of Abr. Ms. # 1 (Abr. 1:1-4) there is no real paragraph break to speak of, yet three characters associated with that one long paragraph. So, at least in terms of this portion of the Abr. Mss, it doesn't follow the pattern you suggest. Instead, the first two character, and not the third, were respectively assigned the numbers 1 and 2, and evidently assigned, by corresponding number, to a segment of that lengthy paragraph. As it turns out, the #2 character correlates to only one word--i.e. the name "Abraham," which comes mid-sentence.

It may also be of interest to note that the Willard Richards mss., which contains Abr. 1:1 - 2:18, and 3:18 - 3:26), has no Egyptian characters regardless of the paragraph breaks. So, it also does not fit the pattern you suggest.

As for the one Williams Ms. and the two Parrish Mss., as least in so far as they share content, it looks from a cursory glance that there may have been some, though not in all cases, correlation between characters and paragraph breaks.

...does this mean (to you) that they all agreed beforehand that those chunks of texts corresponded with each character? (whether or not they were deciphering or enciphering seems not to matter, since they chunks still correspond, regardless of intent.)

Regarding those manuscripts where there is some semblance of a correspondence between characters and breaks, two of them are in the handwriting of Parrish. So, at best, we may be talking about agreement between the William's ms. and one of the Phelps Mss (which one, is open to debate). Whether the scribes agreed beforehand where to align the characters and breaks, or whether it was determined beforehand by someone else and/or some other non-extant manuscript, is indeterminate at this point, though I am not sure how or why it would matter one way or the other to the issue at hand.

...if this is the case, what would be the purpose of writing it down in multiple copies by multiple people? an exercise in penmanship?

I am not even sure why Parrish creating two copies himself, or what need was there for Willard Richards to produce a fourth copy of much of the same material already covered in the one Williams Ms. and the two Phelps Mss. I am even less sure what difference it may make to the issue at hand.

However, were I to venture a guess at this early stage in my research, I suspect that the Richards copy was been made for different reasons than the Williams and Phelps copies. I suspect that the Richards copy was a dictation of a re-translation of the portions of the BoA (perhaps as a means of verifying and/or improving on the accuracy of the earlier translations), whereas the Williams and Parrish copies may have been different drafts of the evolving Phelps project--not unlike the several drafts of the EA's (which I have demonstrated in an earlier thread were not simultaneous dictations) and the translations in the two epitaph notebooks.

...on the flip side of the coin, if it's just a superfluous project carried out by curious scribes, why would they all agree?

Who is saying the scribes thought it superfluous? I don't think they did.

....if each were trying to figure it out, wouldn't there be more variation in which characters correspond to what text? wouldn't there be more crossing out and re-writing?

That may be the case were they independently attempting a re-engineering. From my research, I don't know that the 1835 Abr. Mss. were intended to reverse engineer rather than encipher (as a more pragmatic continuation of the EA/GAEL project), nor am I sure that it was all that independent. I think much of it may have been orchestrated by Phelps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

by "enciphered translation", you mean that they were arbitrarily assigning that paragraph to a specific character? to what end?

To the end of enciphering.

I can't be sure, but over the course of my research I have gotten the sense that the EA/GAEL (and by extension the 1835 Abr. Mss.) weren't intended or used to decipher the BoA from the papyri, but rather they were intended to gather characters from here and there and from the papyri, give them sounds derived from who knows where, and assign them English explanations drawn from various preexisting scriptural sources, though much of it from a preexisting translation of portions of the BoA, so as to either create an new language, and/or recreate what may have been believed to be an old or "pure" language and/or provide a means for publicly conveying sensitive information. In short, I don't believe the KEP were intended or used to decipher texts from the ancient past, but rather to encipher texts in the future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

ok, so if they are assigning paragraphs-worth of meaning to a single character in many instances, it doesn't seem like that makes for a very flexible cipher. that is, you're only going to be able to express those big chunks of meaning. you wouldn't be able to use the characters to, say, encipher a letter or a revelation unless it's identical to verses in the BofA. or am i misunderstanding you? how do you see it being operationalized?

as for calling it superfluous, i don't think the scribes thought it so. i just meant that if you're saying that the KEP manuscripts are non-essential to the translation process, then it's superfluous to the book of abraham itself. but maybe it wasn't the best choice of words.

[Robert F. Smith]

Xander,

(following is my attempted Nov 19 reply to you here -- I'm in Frisco for the annual AAR / SBL meetings and have a hard time getting good WiFi)

There should of course be no double standards, and I appreciate the overall tone of your piece here. You've mentioned much of this before, but it is worth clarifying if only because we all learn more about our own assumptions and those of others by placing them over against each other (John Stuart Mill thought correctly that we sharpen our views on the views of others).

Also, classifying or pigeonholing others as "antis" or "apologists" probably doesn't help. Better to cite people and their views in an analytic way. The people I have met who are merely loosely associated with Signature, Sunstone, FAIR, the Maxwell Institute (there is no FARMS), etc., only because they may have presented a paper at a meeting or published an article or book, seldom agree on everything, and may even disagree sharply with those who are assumed to have a natural affinity. Better to speak about individual views and publications.

It is also nice to find people on all sides of a debate (there are many sides) treating each other with generosity, dignity, and respect -- even when they don't seem to deserve it. I'm sure that you and I can think of several prominent names of people on this Board who behave properly, and even exhibit a wry sense of humor on occasion. We need to follow those examples. And, even though we may take a severe thumping once in a while, we need to own up to our shortcomings. If we mete out a well-deserved thump or two, we need also to be gracious in victory. Malice has no place in the debate.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'll be interested to see what you come up with. But remember, it isn't just the manuscript evidence that makes the critical position the most reasonable position. Keep in mind also that the critical view was the standard view among LDS scholars when the papyri were rediscovered in 1967. It was only after they realized the translations didn't match the Book of Abraham, that they immediately started to refocus their efforts, and changed directions in order to come up with other theories for the source for the Book of Abraham.

I agree that the historical-critical approach to scholarship on this issue is the most reliable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism), and that this was the view among LDS scholars in 1967. However, I'm not sure that everyone reading this blog has an understanding of what that means, nor that LDS scholars have abandoned such scholarship in the intervening years. I was around at that time, Brother Graham, and I saw no refocus or change in direction since then.

We know that Facsimile #3 appeared at the end of the roll as well. So we can identify what was on that roll in four important segments: the begining (Facsimile #1), middle (JSP X and JSP XI) and the end (Facsimile #3).

That is the crux, isn't it?! We need to be well assured that the Cook & Smith measurements are correct, QED? Then we need to agree on how much of that papyrus was available for additional writing. As in biblical scholarship, we have minimalists and maximalists. The debate on this issue continues apace.

For those interested in studying this subject further, Robert Ritner's new release "THE JOSEPH SMITH EGYPTIAN PAPYRI: A COMPLETE EDITION" is a must read.

Thank you for calling this forthcoming book to our attention. The contents seem very important (good photos and collaboration by several specialists), even if they repeat much of what we already know. I promise to read and review it.