All Book Of Abraham Manuscripts Now Online As Jspp

[Chris Smith]

The correlation you've identified tells us nothing about the direction of causation.

[Robert F. Smith]

Joseph Smith said he was translating them immediately before publication. How, then, is this an "improper assumption"?

Oh, right, I forgot. Because he might have accidentally confused translation with transcription—not once, but three times, in two separate documents.

Reductionism is not good historiography. You need to consider the full range of evidence rather than engaging in the very ridicule which you say you find so offensive on this board. Tu quoque.

[Chris Smith]

Reductionism is not good historiography. You need to consider the full range of evidence rather than engaging in the very ridicule which you say you find so offensive on this board. Tu quoque.

I have considered the full range of evidence. I've written a 19,000 word essay positing a production timeline for all of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papers, in which I consider basically every argument that has been made on the subject, plus many of my own invention. By contrast, you have dismissed clear evidence for my position without providing a substantive counterargument. If you want me to let you get away with lecturing me on what constitutes good historiography, you're gonna have to do better than some speculation about serial verb confusion.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I have considered the full range of evidence. I've written a 19,000 word essay positing a production timeline for all of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papers, in which I consider basically every argument that has been made on the subject, plus many of my own invention. By contrast, you have dismissed clear evidence for my position without providing a substantive counterargument. So you've got a long way to go before I let you get away with lecturing me on what constitutes good historiography.

I'll be very interested in reading your serious and detailed work on this question. You usually bring forward a good many useful and provocative points of view in your more serious work, and that is why I usually value it so highly. When will it be published? Or did I miss it?

[MormonMason]

The "new" work by Marquardt in Ritner's The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, posits translation activity on March 8, 1842 to March 9, 1842, covering the remaining text from 2:19-5:21 on 8th and 9th, and the second cut and its accompanying text following (but seemingly before the 11th). He comes to his conclusion by use of journal and two letter accounts (the third cut coming later). That still is a few days off from March 15, 1842. If Marquardt's work holds up on that point, you might either have to revisit the question of the origin of the phraseology or have to refute Marquardt on the points he raised.

I have not yet read the content of the letters for myself and do not know when I will be able to do so, but you can get the source information for the accounts on page 49 of the abovementioned book. Maybe my buyer's remorse for purchasing the book may go away after all. (We'll see as it is pretty strong at the moment).

One oddity worth mentioning here, but probably not bearing much weight within the context of the time written, is the 1841 year date on the first portion of the manuscript. I do not know who wrote it or when it was written on the back of the page.

[wenglund]

The correlation you've identified tells us nothing about the direction of causation.

For those of us with inductive skills it does. The so-called causation is strongly implied in the text of the 1835 Abraham manuscripts where the author refers the reader to the Facsimile #1 representation so that the reader can see what the author was talking about in the text. In other words, in 1835 the meaning of Facsimile #1 was known, and that meaning was nearly identical to the explanations given for that Facsimile in 1842. Do the math. It adds up to the explanations for Facsimile #1 were pretty much known in 1835.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[noel00]

So you do not want to purchase the book because you disagree with it's contents and then go and buy the book and regret it???

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.

5.The idolatrous god of Elkenah.

6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.

7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.

8. The idolatrous god of Korash.

9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh

This may be a bit off topic. But for some dumb reason I used to think these were the names of the idolatrous gods. It occoured to me that these are probably names of prominent priests or people. The names of the gods are not acutally given.

For instance Here is a picutre of me and the idolatrous god of Mola Ram is Kali. Rofl.

I know, call me slow but I just never understood it before.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Chris Smith]

I'll be very interested in reading your serious and detailed work on this question. You usually bring forward a good many useful and provocative points of view in your more serious work, and that is why I usually value it so highly. When will it be published? Or did I miss it?

I'm under contract to publish the thing in a couple years. Unfortunately I need to focus on my dissertation in the meantime.

[Chris Smith]

For those of us with inductive skills it does. The so-called causation is strongly implied in the text of the 1835 Abraham manuscripts where the author refers the reader to the Facsimile #1 representation so that the reader can see what the author was talking about in the text. In other words, in 1835 the meaning of Facsimile #1 was known, and that meaning was nearly identical to the explanations given for that Facsimile in 1842. Do the math. It adds up to the explanations for Facsimile #1 were pretty much known in 1835.

We know that Joseph had orally explained the vignette very early, because we have eyewitness accounts which give Joseph's interpretations of it. However, these oral interpretations did not strictly follow the written explanation. The earliest manuscript of Abraham 1:12 identifies the deities differently than the published explanation. Also, William Appleby refers to the bird as the sign of the dove rather than an angel as in the written explanations. I don't doubt that the meanings of the figures were "pretty much known" in 1835, but that doesn't mean that a written explanation had been produced by that date, any more than Joseph's oral interpretations of the Book of Joseph mean he had produced a written copy of that text.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Chris Smith

[MormonMason]

So you do not want to purchase the book because you disagree with it's contents and then go and buy the book and regret it???

Sucks, doesn't it?!? When I realized that only 501 copies were printed I decided I had to act, especially in the event it never is printed again (some bookshops have had one copy of this book since its initial release with no one showing interest in it and the copies getting damaged by the day with each browser who does not purchase). If it never was reprinted, it would be too hard to find and many libraries likely would not carry it, should I need to access it again in future. Depending upon where I was I could not be guaranteed access to the book because in many locations it never would be found. I decided it was better to have my own copy in such an event. Besides, I know what happens to rare books and I was not about to pay hundreds of dollars for the book a few years from now if I already knew I would hate enough paying the retail price now.

And, my initial concern about buying the book was because I felt it a waste of money because it essentially is an anti-Mormon book (I already have quite a few of those, many of which rehash information present in the book we are discussing), and because much of what is in it can be obtained from several sources for about a quarter to a third of the cost of the book itself, it being a rehashing and slight update of these other sources. Most of these sources I already had.

But, there is an item or two that I have found that make it possible to be of use in future, especially some of the more serious zingers in the text as well as information tending toward solidifying a time line for certain aspects of the Book of Abraham. I also decided on purchasing it for the information on patches and their locations but that aspect of it ended up disappointing me because the list is incomplete. Only the most significant are listed and the photos in the book are not of high enough resolution to find easily the others not listed. I had hoped to make it so I would not have to visit the CHL every time I wanted to look at the papyri and/or high resolution photos every time I wanted to get a close look at the various patches for one reason or another. But, such is life. Sometimes, we all are forced to do things we do not want to do and regret afterwards doing. This was just one of those times.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm under contract to publish the thing in a couple years. Unfortunately I need to focus on my dissertation in the meantime.

O.K. Chris, dissertation it is. Meantime, all this will just have to remain in abeyance.

[wenglund]

I don't doubt that the meanings of the figures were "pretty much known" in 1835,

This is essentially what I suggesting.

...but that doesn't mean that a written explanation had been produced by that date,

The meaning of the facsimile was written in 1835, and it was mostly the same as the explanations given in 1842. The differences are mostly in formate and not content. and not worth straining at the gnats.

any more than Joseph's oral interpretations of the Book of Joseph mean he had produced a written copy of that text.

The evidence is such that people can reasonably conclude either way about the Book of Joseph.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-