Source For The Book Of Abraham

[Xander]

As most of you probably know, the thrust of the critical argument is basically this. Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham by "translating" the Egyptian papyrus known today as the Book of Breathings (BoB). The papyri were rediscovered in the late 60's and Egyptologists have confirmed that the BoB has no relationship to Joseph Smith's translation. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not by any means legitimately translate ancient documents. LDS defenders have generally argued - ever since it was shown that the BoB didn't translate to anything relating to Abraham - that the actual source for the Book of Abraham is still missing, and was possibly burned up in the fire of Chicago. Apologists generally attack critics for rejecting this theory, but few actually understand why. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no reasonable basis for this theory and especially given the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the BoB as the source. Recently, I was accused of asserting this without any evidence supporting it, so as promised, I'm starting a thread dedicated to this subject.

Evidence #1:

Virtually all historic references to the Joseph Smith papyri point to extant portions of the collection. This was established in a previous thread where apologists were unable to produce a single historic reference that alluded to missing portions of the Joseph Smith papyri (aside from Facsimile 3, which has been preserved via copying). More than a dozen historic references from a wide variety of sources, were shown to point to extant portions of the collection which underscored how small this collection had always been.

On this point I want to quickly address a favorite apologetic argument that needs to be buried for good. Every time I think enough LDS believers have understood how weak it is (i.e. Kevin Barney says it doesn't hold water), another defender throws it up as if it hasn't already been refuted. So here goes...

In the December 1835 issue of Messenger and Advocate, Oliver Cowdery wrote:

Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation.

A similar remark comes from Robert Horne:

The records which I saw were some kind of parchment or papyrus, and it contained writing in red and black. Mother Lucy told me that one was the writings of Abraham and the other the writings of Joseph, who was sold in Egypt - Robert Horne, "Reminiscences of the Church in Nauvoo," Latter-day Saints Millennial Star 60 (1893): 585

Apologists following Nibley's lead have traditionally torn this phrase "beautifully written," from its context to claim that Cowdery provided us with enough information here to conclude the papyrus containing the Book of Abraham was beautifully written and contained rubrics (red ink). According to Nibley this citation proves that:

Smith explicitly describes another Egyptian manuscript which he says was the real Book of Abraham. It was, he reports, (a) perfectly preserved, (b) beautifully written, and © containing rubrics—passages in red ink. On each of these points the Book of Breathings manuscript fails conspicuously to qualify.

The Cowdery citation (which Nibley erroneously attributed to Joseph Smith) is the lynchpin for Nibley's notorious "rubrics" argument. The critics drew their attention to the context of this citation more than eight years ago over at the ZLMB message forum. The context clearly shows that Cowdery refers to the collection containing both the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph. Lindsay caught wind of the critical argument but never fully grasped the reasoning or the evidence supporting it. According to Lindsay,

While concurring that the Book of Breathings does not contain red characters and does not appear to be "beautifully written" or "perfectly preserved," the argument is offered that the description of a scroll having red ink only applies to only one of two scrolls, and that the scroll with the red ink was the Book of Joseph, not the Book of Abraham. However, the description of the original scrolls makes no distinction between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

On the contrary, what Lindsay, and LDS apologists in general have failed to address is the account by William Appleby, who on 5 May 1841, visited Joseph Smith and wrote, "There is a perceptible difference between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe."

Thus, the well preserved roll which contains red ink is clearly the source for the Book of Joseph, leaving the second roll to be the source for the Book of Abraham. And by that second roll, we're talking about that poorly perserved roll known as the Book of Breathings.

So we have the "well preserved" scroll containing rubrics, referred to as the Book of Joseph:

And then we have the "poorly preserved" scroll which contained the Book of Abraham:

Of course, former LDS scholar Edward Ashment used both the context of Cowdery's remark, in conjunction with Appleby's testimony to refute this old apologetic argument more than a decade ago, but it doesn't seem to matter how many times this refutation is presented. LDS scholars and apologists continue to publish and advertise Nibley's argument without fail..

John Gee has used this failed argument on multiple occasions. Michael Rhodes used it in an article published in the Ensign. Dan Peterson was also published in the Ensign, and he alluded to this rubrics argument, claiming Nibley had "shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham."

This argument has also been used in online arguments published by numerous apologists such as Tom Nibley, Jeff Lindsay and Kerry Shirts. On the message forums you can search the phrase and see an endless supply of discussions where LDS defenders have apparently done little more than google the FARMS article and then relay it uncritically. Among those are USU78 and most recently, Loran Blood. Interestingly enough, Wade Englund revealed recently that he had no idea that any of the papyri contained red ink at all.

So can we finally dispense with this well refuted apologetic? The historical evidence clearly bolsters the critical argument that the BoB was the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. How Nibley managed to mangle this citation so badly, and then get a loyal following of LDS defenders to follow suit is a mystery. But back to the evidence for the BoB/BoA connection.

Evdence #2

Every published version of the Book of Abraham begins with a copy of Facsimile #1, which we now know belonged at the "commencement" of the scroll containing the Book of Breathings.

Evidence #3:

Every published version of the Book of Abraham contains a copy of Facsimile #3 which we now know belonged at the end of the scroll containing the Book of Breathings. So we know that we have the beginning and ending papyrus sheets from the same scroll, which the Church admits comes "from the Book of Abraham."

All that there is in between is.... (drum roll).... The Book of Breathings.

Evidence #4:

As if we needed further evidence connecting this text with the Book of Abraham, the translated text of the Book of Abraham explicitly refers to Facsimile #1, locating it at the "commencement" of this record. Describing the scene of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham upon the altar, Abraham 1:12 says, "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." So often I'm told that the critics are focused on the "process" of translation and never really bother to read what the Abraham text actually says, but in my experience, the opposite is true. The apologists are the ones focusing on the process of translation (trying to reinvent what the word "translate" means) as it is used to form one of their favorite straw man arguments.

Anyway, this is enough to establish the point with a high degree of certainty, that the source for the Book of Abraham is precisely what the evidence above suggests: the papyrus immediately following Facsimile 1, which Klaus Baer determined to be the Book of Breathings.

So is there anything else out there that would lead anyone to believe the Book of Breathings was the source for the Book of Abraham? Of course, there is much more evidence that drives this point home, but I'll save that for next weekend.

Until then, cue the dueling banjos.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Xander

[Storm Rider]

Well, you did it for me. The Church is not true, Joseph Smith was a con man, and God does not talk to a prophet today. Whew, glad we got that out of the way. Who has the marshmellows because I am ready for some s'mores and the fire is hot at my place.

No content no entry to thread.

[ebeddoulos]

Xander:

There is a tale about a group of veteran pensioners at an old folks home who told the same old, funny, war stories over and over so often that they started to assign numbers to them. Then when they wanted to tell a story, they'd just belt out a number and the whole group would laugh uproariously. Such is the case here. You have presented your so called evidence (#1!) and I'm laughing at you because I know your little argument has been refuted over and over again. So here goes: (#2!)

Edited January 28, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[Tarski]

Xander:

There is a tale about a group of veteran pensioners at an old folks home who told the same old, funny, war stories over and over so often that they started to assign numbers to them. Then when they wanted to tell a story, they'd just belt out a number and the whole group would laugh uproariously. Such is the case here. You have presented your so called evidence (#1!) and I'm laughing at you because I know your little argument has been refuted over and over again. So here goes: (#2!)

Hmm. Whom should I trust? The guy with the understandable post full of evidence or the guy with the quip?

[Bill Hamblin]

Hmm. Whom should I trust? The guy with the understandable post full of evidence or the guy with the quip?

Says the guy with a quip.

[wenglund]

I came to feast on new and substantial information, and was given stale pretzels instead.

Let's look at Kevin's first argument. Essentially, he is suggesting that because visitors were typically shown and/or recalled seeing the first portion of the Abrahamic scroll, and even though most of the descriptions of the scroll given by the visitors are not Abraham specific, and some descriptions, (like Jacobs ladder) have no relevance to the Book of Abraham, in Kevin's mind this somehow means that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" is that first portion of the scroll. LOL

Can you say non sequitur?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Peppermint Patty]

Xander,

Thank you very much for your research. This is certainly one area I think we can do a much better job inoculating ourselves.

Elder Jensen recently stated that, "There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with this generation, tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

The BoA is certainly one area for me that I need to exercise faith. In every religion or philosophy, there are things in which its followers must "fall on faith". Most important in discussions like this, I always need to remember the counsel of Ezra Taft Benson and beware of pride by not being "easily offended".

[Xander]

Says the guy with a quip.

Actually Tarski asks a reasonable question in response to the quip, but I think you already knew that. I present evidence to back up my claims, as always. And like always, I'm met with rhetoric.

[Xander]

I came to feast on new and substantial information, and was given stale pretzels instead.

Let's look at Kevin's first argument. Essentially, he is suggesting that because visitors were typically shown and/or recalled seeing the first portion of the Abrahamic scroll, and even though most of the descriptions of the scroll given by the visitors are not Abraham specific, and some descriptions, (like Jacobs ladder) have no relevance to the Book of Abraham, in Kevin's mind this somehow means that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" is that first portion of the scroll. LOL

Can you say non sequitur?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can anyone say bad comprehension? That's not what I argued at all. But these kinds of responses from you are to be expected. Apparently, you write them up before you even bother finish reading the evidence presented. Maybe you should try to do a better job of understanding the arguments before launching into the usual dismissive rhetoric. It might save you from further embarrassment.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

Xander,

Thank you very much for your research. This is certainly one area I think we can do a much better job inoculating ourselves.

Elder Jensen recently stated that, "There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with this generation, tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

The BoA is certainly one area for me that I need to exercise faith. In every religion or philosophy, there are things in which its followers must "fall on faith". Most important in discussions like this, I always need to remember the counsel of Ezra Taft Benson and beware of pride by not being "easily offended".

You're welcome.

[wenglund]

Kevin next argues that even though all the extant 1835 Abraham manuscripts didn't begin with Facsimile #1, the fact that today's copies of the Book of Abraham begin with Facsimile #1, just as with the Abrahamic scroll, in Kevin's mind this somehow means that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" is that first portion of the scroll. LOL

Again, can you say non sequitur?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 28, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Next, Kevin suggest that in spite of the second of the three facsimile, or the middle facsimile, was not in-between the other two facsimiles on the Abrahamic scroll, this somehow means, in Kevin's mind, that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" was in-between the two facsimiles. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 28, 2012 by wenglund

[Xander]

Hmm. Whom should I trust? The guy with the understandable post full of evidence or the guy with the quip?

You noticed that too, huh?

I just love these debate tactics by defenders who assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that a presented argument has long since been refuted. I think I just established the opposite, but anyone is free to demonstrate otherwise. The fact is Nibley misrepresented this source in more ways than one, and is predecessors simply followed his lead without actually doing the necessary research to verify the validity of his claim. It took those evil anti-Mormon critics to show them the folly of their argument.

But this is hardly the only example of Nibley's bad scholarship regarding the Book of Abraham. His piece on the Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers gets so much wrong, that it is amazing that FARMS even bothers to keep it online anymore.

[Xander]

Kevin next argues that even though all the extant 1835 Abraham manuscripts didn't begin with Facsimile #1, the fact that today's copies of the Book of Abraham begin with Facsimile #1, just as with the Abrahamic scroll, in Kevin's mind this somehow means that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" is that first portion of the scroll. LOL

Again, can you say non sequitur?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can say it, but unfortunately you don't understand it. Here is what I said: "Every published version of the Book of Abraham begins with a copy of Facsimile #1, which we now know belonged at the "commencement" of the scroll containing the Book of Breathings."

That wade fails to understand this is hardly surprising, but he must be kidding himself if he thinks he can get away with misrepresenting me for the umpteenth time. He has no credibility when it comes to understanding these issues, specifically the arguments presented by critics, as his rhetoric-based responses prove. The simple fact of the matter is that the Church's canonized book claims this Facsimile is "from the Book of Abraham." This Facsimile we know was at the beginning of a scroll. The Book of Abraham explicitly refers to this Facsimile at the beginning of the record (scroll). Hence, it is simple inductive logic to conclude that what follows in conjunction to this Facsimile is the Book of Abraham. But as I said before, this is hardly the only evidence connecting the Book of Abraham translation with the Book of Breathings. And while Wade is pretending to laugh at the most reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence, he fails to understand that this is precisely the same conclusion that LDS scholars reached before Egyptologists determined the BoB didn't translate to be the Book of Abraham. Only at that point in time did the apologetic fervor take over, and the reasonable interpretation of the evidence was placed on the back burner.

[wenglund]

Finally, Kevin wishes us to believe that because the Book of Abraham identifies facsimile 1 as at the "commencement" of the record, and even though the Book of Abraham doesn't begin with the account of the incident allegedly depicted in facsimile #1, just as it is at the beginning of the Abrahamic scroll (it doesn't come until a number of verses later), in Kevin's mind this means that there is a "high degree of certainty",that the specific source for the specific portion of the record conainted in the Book of Abraham, iwas right next to facsimile 1 on the scroll. LOL

If Kevin presented his strongest arguements first, then I can hardly wait until next weekend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Next, Kevin suggest that in spite of the second of the three facsimile, or the middle facsimile, was not in-between the other two facsimiles on the Abrahamic scroll, this somehow means, in Kevin's mind, that there is a "high degree of certainty, that the specific source for the Book of Abraham" was in-between the two facsimiles. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I said nothing of Facsimile 2, but I suspect you already knew this. I think the argument is perfectly clear. We have the beginning and the ending of the Scroll of Hor, both of which the Church claims comes "from the Book of Abraham." Facsimile 2 is not extant, only a copy remains. We know Facsimile 3 was at the end of the scroll because it mentions Hor. Egyptologists are in agreement on this point. Where Facsimile 2 was originally located is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence strongly suggests that Facsmiles 1 and 3 represent the beginning and end, and therefore the text of the Book of Abraham comes from the Egyptian text between the two. That text is represented in the "Book of Breathings." This is so simple a child could understand it.

Notice that wade has done nothing to refute the evidence. Altersteve recently suggested no evidence exists to support this argument, but the whole point of this thread was to lay out the evidence clearly so apologists could stop appealing to ignorance for rhetorical purposes in future arguments.

[wenglund]

Yes, and of course in Kevin's mind, I am the one who doesn't understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I said nothing of Facsimile 2, but I suspect you already knew this..

Of course you didn't mention it. Like with similar examples from my earlier posts, your arguments conveniently ignored and/or was oblivious to these important bits of data that are deleterious to your arguments. That has been my point. Sorry it was lost on you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 28, 2012 by wenglund

[Xander]

Finally, Kevin wishes us to believe that because the Book of Abraham identifies facsimile 1 as at the "commencement" of the record, and even though the Book of Abraham doesn't begin with the account of the incident allegedly depicted in facsimile #1, just as it is at the beginning of the Abrahamic scroll (it doesn't come until a number of verses later), in Kevin's mind this means that there is a "high degree of certainty",that the specific source for the specific portion of the record conainted in the Book of Abraham, iwas right next to facsimile 1 on the scroll. LOL

If Kevin presented his strongest arguements first, then I can hardly wait until next weekend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me get this straight. According to wade, Abraham chapter one doesn't really refer to Facsimile #1 being located at the "commencement of this record," because the remark doesn't appear until verse 12?

Wow. Critics can only pray that this inane reasoning shows up in publication one day.

Again, while wade is trying to ridicule my "reasoning," which is pretty hilarious in and of itself, he completely ignores the fact that this was precisely the reasoning adopted by LDS scholars. That is, before they found out the translation of the BoB didn't vindicate Joseph Smith as translator. Thus, the only basis for concluding anything else, is strictly apologetic. It is designed not to address of reconcile the evidence, it is designed to avoid the evidence at all costs while propping up a predetermined theological position (i.e. Joseph Smith was a true Prophet who could really translate things)

[Xander]

Of course you didn't mention it. Your argument conveniently ignored and/or was oblivious to this important bit of data. That was my point. Sorry it was lost on you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-a

You haven't demonstrated how it is "important" at all. All you are doing is blowing smoke and trying to distract from the evidence presented.

[Xander]

Yes, and of course in Kevin's mind, I am the one who doesn't understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can assure you I'm not the only one who thinks so. You've demonstrated your failure to comprehend very simple arguments time and time again. This thread is no exception.

[wenglund]

You haven't demonstrated how it is "important" at all. All you are doing is blowing smoke and trying to distract from the evidence presented.

The importance ought to be self-evident. If it isn't, then you aren't thinking critically enough or beyond the superficial level of your own limited perspective. At the very least, your arguments conveniently ignore 1/3rd of the facsimiles, and I know why. Tsk, tsk.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

I can assure you I'm not the only one who thinks so. You've demonstrated your failure to comprehend very simple arguments time and time again. This thread is no exception.

Gee, are we going to have another thread where we are going argue about who is not understanding whom?! How exciting!

[Thinking]

Evdence #2

Every published version of the Book of Abraham begins with a copy of Facsimile #1, which we now know belonged at the "commencement" of the scroll containing the Book of Breathings.

Evidence #3:

Every published version of the Book of Abraham contains a copy of Facsimile #3 which we now know belonged at the end of the scroll containing the Book of Breathings. So we know that we have the beginning and ending papyrus sheets from the same scroll, which the Church admits comes "from the Book of Abraham."

All that there is in between is.... (drum roll).... The Book of Breathings.

Don't forget the most powerful apologetic argument.

"The inspired text of the Book of Abraham, as attested by the Holy Ghost, is a witness of its divine source. Someday this dilemna, along with many others, will be solved." (H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham, p.252)

[Thinking]

Deleted since the post to which I responded was deleted.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Thinking