Boa Correction Theory, Why Didn'T Joseph Know?

[Saints Alive]

One of the theories that accounts for differences between egyptologists' translations of the papyri and Josephs Smith's is that, similar to the JST, Joseph was actually correcting errors that had crept into the BOA.

If that is the case why didn't he know that was what he was doing?

Admittedly I (and I don't imagine anyone else) full understands the revelatory translation process but it seems like it would be incredibly useful to know what is and what isn't a literal translation.

[Monster]

Except the two translations have no resemblance to each other in the least. If he was correcting something it was the whole entire book, plus the time frame in which is was written. This is a powerfully weak apologetic argument. I would buy the catalyst theory before this argument.

[Saints Alive]

translation, especially translation of symbols, is a tricky thing. I don't think it is unreasonable at all that the translations are so different.

[wenglund]

One of the theories that accounts for differences between egyptologists' translations of the papyri and Josephs Smith's is that, similar to the JST, Joseph was actually correcting errors that had crept into the BOA.

If that is the case why didn't he know that was what he was doing?

Admittedly I (and I don't imagine anyone else) full understands the revelatory translation process but it seems like it would be incredibly useful to know what is and what isn't a literal translation.

This alleged theory assumes that the BoA was translated from portions of the papyri that have since been translated by Egyptologists. This assumption is in serious dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

This alleged theory assumes that the BoA was translated from portions of the papyri that have since been translated by Egyptologists. This assumption is in serious dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But those who say the portions we do have are what JS thought was the Egyptian representation of the BOA have confidently crowned themselves the winner in this debate, suggesting that it isn't even debatable anymore, essentially.

[Saints Alive]

This alleged theory assumes that the BoA was translated from portions of the papyri that have since been translated by Egyptologists. This assumption is in serious dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe my church history is a little fuzzy but if that is the case why were the facsimiles included in the original production and why are they still included?

[Thinking]

One of the theories that accounts for differences between egyptologists' translations of the papyri and Josephs Smith's is that, similar to the JST, Joseph was actually correcting errors that had crept into the BOA.

If that is the case why didn't he know that was what he was doing?

Admittedly I (and I don't imagine anyone else) full understands the revelatory translation process but it seems like it would be incredibly useful to know what is and what isn't a literal translation.

S

T

R

E

T

C

H

Edited September 26, 2012 by Thinking

[MormonMason]

I cannot subscribe to said theory above. Eyewitness accounts--both hostile and otherwise--say that Mother Smith had a long roll of papyrus that she identified as that of Abraham. The Horos scroll had been cut apart and mounted under glass. The remainder was left as a long roll and exhibited by Mother Smith--after it had been cut apart.

The key was that he did not know where one part ended and another began--at first. But, the manner in which the grammar project was halted, and manner in which the first part of the scroll was mounted under glass and the latter part was left as a roll to be exhibited and studied, indicates to me that Joseph Smith may have figured it out.

[CA Steve]

I cannot subscribe to said theory above. Eyewitness accounts--both hostile and otherwise--say that Mother Smith had a long roll of papyrus that she identified as that of Abraham. The Horos scroll had been cut apart and mounted under glass. The remainder was left as a long roll and exhibited by Mother Smith--after it had been cut apart.

The key was that he did not know where one part ended and another began--at first. But, the manner in which the grammar project was halted, and manner in which the first part of the scroll was mounted under glass and the latter part was left as a roll to be exhibited and studied, indicates to me that Joseph Smith may have figured it out.

If he had figured it out why would he be trying to use the EAG to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

[Saints Alive]

I cannot subscribe to said theory above. Eyewitness accounts--both hostile and otherwise--say that Mother Smith had a long roll of papyrus that she identified as that of Abraham. The Horos scroll had been cut apart and mounted under glass. The remainder was left as a long roll and exhibited by Mother Smith--after it had been cut apart.

The key was that he did not know where one part ended and another began--at first. But, the manner in which the grammar project was halted, and manner in which the first part of the scroll was mounted under glass and the latter part was left as a roll to be exhibited and studied, indicates to me that Joseph Smith may have figured it out.

So what about the facsimiles?

[cdowis]

If he had figured it out why would he be trying to use the EAG to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

I am interested in your reference here. CFR.

Also, it would be useful if you could produce the translation of the Kinderhook plates, so that we can examine your claim.

Edited September 26, 2012 by cdowis

[MormonMason]

If he had figured it out why would he be trying to use the EAG to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates?

Who said that is what he did? Upon the basis of what? One character? Got an historical reference for that?

[MormonMason]

So what about the facsimiles?

What about them? Facsimile 1 is not standard funerary fare, contrary to the many claims made concerning it. It is not an embalming scene. The person who is only partially on the bier (the legs are off of it in front of the priest, who stands between the legs of the one on the bier and the bier) is very much alive. It is not a resurrection scene because the figure on the bier is neither nude nor mummiform, and does not have the traditional one hand to side and one to face. In this one both hands are up. Additionally, the single word remaining of the broken column of text has something to do with sacrifice.

Facsimile 2 is of interest. Facsimile 3 on the literal face of it does not seem to mention anything regarding Abraham. Now, recall that there is evidence of additional scroll? Eyewitnesses, both hostile and non, agree that there was a long scroll after the extant parts of the Horos scroll were cut apart and mounted under glass. Now, supposing that the entire roll was from a person who wanted to hide a sacred text within another to allow it to be hidden away to be found later. Suppose that this following text had explanations written that take the funerary vignette at or near the end of the Horos text and explain the scene alternatively. This can not be disproven to have been the case with the current state of the papyri.

Otherwise, so what? I know what the text in the Facsimile says and I know what it doesn't say. I also know from multiple examples of Ptolemaic Era, Roman Era, and other texts of Egypt that all sorts of gender switching and switching identities between gods and mortals, where mortals are labelled as gods, occurs in this kind of literature. I have seen foreign gods dressed as Egyptian gods in inscriptions and elsewhere (The Book of Abraham seems to have been the first to mention that this occurred and this idea was once a laugh-getter). I have seen it with my own eyes so the claims of the critics regarding Facsimile 3 do not concern me too much, if at all.

Edited September 26, 2012 by MormonMason

[CA Steve]

I am interested in your reference here. CFR.

Also, it would be useful if you could produce the translation of the Kinderhook plates, so that we can examine your claim.

From Don Bradley presentation on the Kinderhook Plates @ Fair 2011 entittled “President Joseph Has Translated a Portion”: Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates"

But let me read you the crucial part here, “the plates are evidently brass, and are covered on both sides with hieroglyphics. They were brought up and shown to Joseph Smith. He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet,” Now, the guys a non-Mormon here, and so he doesn‟t actually understand what this Egyptian Alphabet is. So he says, “which he took from the plates which the Book of Mormon was translated,” but he doesn‟t know it‟s from the Book of Abraham papyrus, he says, “He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet…and they‟re evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.” So this is the Alphabet and Grammar volume, and you can see the title on the spine says “Egyptian Alphabet.” Now, Robin Jenson, of the Joseph Smith papers tells me that we don‟t know when this label was added, it could have been added in Utah. If it was added early on, then this “gentile” would have seen this on the spine and obviously would have called it the “Egyptian Alphabet

I did not claim he translated them.

Edited September 26, 2012 by CA Steve

[Saints Alive]

What about them? Facsimile 1 is not standard funerary fare, contrary to the many claims made concerning it. It is not an embalming scene. The person who is only partially on the bier (the legs are off of it in front of the priest, who stands between the legs of the one on the bier and the bier) is very much alive. It is not a resurrection scene because the figure on the bier is neither nude nor mummiform, and does not have the traditional one hand to side and one to face. In this one both hands are up. Additionally, the single word remaining of the broken column of text has something to do with sacrifice.

Facsimile 2 is of interest. Facsimile 3 on the literal face of it does not seem to mention anything regarding Abraham. Now, recall that there is evidence of additional scroll? Eyewitnesses, both hostile and non, agree that there was a long scroll after the extant parts of the Horos scroll were cut apart and mounted under glass. Now, supposing that the entire roll was from a person who wanted to hide a sacred text within another to allow it to be hidden away to be found later. Suppose that this following text had explanations written that take the funerary vignette at or near the end of the Horos text and explain the scene alternatively. This can not be disproven to have been the case with the current state of the papyri.

Otherwise, so what? I know what the text in the Facsimile says and I know what it doesn't say. I also know from multiple examples of Ptolemaic Era, Roman Era, and other texts of Egypt that all sorts of gender switching and switching identities between gods and mortals, where mortals are labelled as gods, occurs in this kind of literature. I have seen foreign gods dressed as Egyptian gods in inscriptions and elsewhere (The Book of Abraham seems to have been the first to mention that this occurred and this idea was once a laugh-getter). I have seen it with my own eyes so the claims of the critics regarding Facsimile 3 do not concern me too much, if at all.

that's all very interesting. I wish I had more time to study the details of the BoA.

[urroner]

S

T

R

E

T

C

H

[yootaw]

What about them? Facsimile 1 is not standard funerary fare, contrary to the many claims made concerning it. It is not an embalming scene. The person who is only partially on the bier (the legs are off of it in front of the priest, who stands between the legs of the one on the bier and the bier) is very much alive. It is not a resurrection scene because the figure on the bier is neither nude nor mummiform, and does not have the traditional one hand to side and one to face. In this one both hands are up. Additionally, the single word remaining of the broken column of text has something to do with sacrifice.

Facsimile 2 is of interest. Facsimile 3 on the literal face of it does not seem to mention anything regarding Abraham. Now, recall that there is evidence of additional scroll? Eyewitnesses, both hostile and non, agree that there was a long scroll after the extant parts of the Horos scroll were cut apart and mounted under glass. Now, supposing that the entire roll was from a person who wanted to hide a sacred text within another to allow it to be hidden away to be found later. Suppose that this following text had explanations written that take the funerary vignette at or near the end of the Horos text and explain the scene alternatively. This can not be disproven to have been the case with the current state of the papyri.

Otherwise, so what? I know what the text in the Facsimile says and I know what it doesn't say. I also know from multiple examples of Ptolemaic Era, Roman Era, and other texts of Egypt that all sorts of gender switching and switching identities between gods and mortals, where mortals are labelled as gods, occurs in this kind of literature. I have seen foreign gods dressed as Egyptian gods in inscriptions and elsewhere (The Book of Abraham seems to have been the first to mention that this occurred and this idea was once a laugh-getter). I have seen it with my own eyes so the claims of the critics regarding Facsimile 3 do not concern me too much, if at all.

Are there any Egyptologists that have interpreted any of the Facsimiles in a way that supports Josephs translation? If so, I haven't seen it (although I've seen plenty to the contrary). If not, I think that the question regarding the inclusion of the Facsimiles as the text from which the BoA was translated still stands. It seems clear, especially from the translation of the Fascimiles provided, that Joseph Smith thought that the Fascimiles were part of the BoA.

[MormonMason]

From Don Bradley presentation on the Kinderhook Plates @ Fair 2011 entittled “President Joseph Has Translated a Portion”: Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates"

Quote

But let me read you the crucial part here, “the plates are evidently brass, and are covered on both sides with hieroglyphics. They were brought up and shown to Joseph Smith. He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet,” Now, the guys a non-Mormon here, and so he doesn‟t actually understand what this Egyptian Alphabet is. So he says, “which he took from the plates which the Book of Mormon was translated,” but he doesn‟t know it‟s from the Book of Abraham papyrus, he says, “He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet…and they‟re evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.” So this is the Alphabet and Grammar volume, and you can see the title on the spine says “Egyptian Alphabet.” Now, Robin Jenson, of the Joseph Smith papers tells me that we don‟t know when this label was added, it could have been added in Utah. If it was added early on, then this “gentile” would have seen this on the spine and obviously would have called it the “Egyptian Alphabet

The quote is pretty direct that Joseph showed him characters taken from the plates. That points to the Anthon Transcript. In Joseph Smith's day, the Transcript had accompanying translation material. That translation material now is missing. It is a bit of a stretch to see this as referring to the Egyptian Papers. I have also seen a journal account from the same day, although I cannot now recall which journal I read it in, which stated that Joseph Smith that day called for his Hebrew Lexicon before speaking with the man who had the plates. I am at present unclear concerning details.

Edited September 27, 2012 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

Are there any Egyptologists that have interpreted any of the Facsimiles in a way that supports Josephs translation? If so, I haven't seen it (although I've seen plenty to the contrary). If not, I think that the question regarding the inclusion of the Facsimiles as the text from which the BoA was translated still stands. It seems clear, especially from the translation of the Fascimiles provided, that Joseph Smith thought that the Fascimiles were part of the BoA.

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a made up existence somewhat like Jim Carrey was in the movie "The Truman Show". Can't we just move on with this and say JS made a mistake?

[CA Steve]

The quote is pretty direct that Joseph showed him characters taken from the plates. That points to the Anthon Transcript. In Joseph Smith's day, the Transcript had accompanying translation material. That translation material now is missing. It is a bit of a stretch to see this as referring to the Egyptian Papers. I have also seen a journal account from the same day, although I cannot now recall which journal I read it in, which stated that Joseph Smith that day called for his Hebrew Lexicon before speaking with the man who had the plates. I am at present unclear concerning details.

More from Don's paper.

So what can we draw out of these sources? Joseph Smith was visited, presumably at his house, by several gentlemen or citizens on this day, among whom was likely this guy, “A Gentile,” and he displayed to them the Kinderhook plates. And I would also infer from that other things. Joseph wanted to show them the character match he had found and told Clayton about, so he sent William Smith, not for his Hebrew Lexicon, as Willard Richards thought, but for his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Now Richards is keeping this journal for Joseph, rather than Joseph keeping it himself, if he‟s not present, he‟s not necessarily going to know what volume was sent for, he would hear about it from someone else. So I believe that the translation tool that Joseph actually sends for while talking to these gentlemen is the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

Bold mine.

[yootaw]

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a made up existence somewhat like Jim Carrey was in the movie "The Truman Show". Can't we just move on with this and say JS made a mistake?

Amen, and Amen.

[Saints Alive]

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a made up existence somewhat like Jim Carrey was in the movie "The Truman Show". Can't we just move on with this and say JS made a mistake?

except that if that is the case it could have larger implications.

[yootaw]

except that if that is the case it could have larger implications.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. I can understand why some are uncomfortable with this, but it is the only way that I can make sense of the available information.

[MormonMason]

Are there any Egyptologists that have interpreted any of the Facsimiles in a way that supports Josephs translation? If so, I haven't seen it (although I've seen plenty to the contrary). If not, I think that the question regarding the inclusion of the Facsimiles as the text from which the BoA was translated still stands. It seems clear, especially from the translation of the Fascimiles provided, that Joseph Smith thought that the Fascimiles were part of the BoA.

Why should they? They can only read what they have available to them, conjecture on the damaged portions, and scratch the surface meaning--at best. None of the actual Book of Abraham is available to anyone. The original is gone.

Facsimile 1 does not belong to the funerary genre (having sacrificial elements about it as well as an actual word in a broken column that has to do with offering or sacrifice) and has absolutely nothing to do with the text that surrounded it on the papyrus. Worse, what followed the first vignette that became Facsimile 1 was a warning and instruction text that is supposed to be at the end of a Book of Breathing, not where it is on the Horos roll right between the first vignette and the actual text of the Book of Breathing. But, there is no text other than a broken column that is translatable.

In fact, there is no text in the actual vignette but that broken column. So, for an Egyptologist to translate this facsimile would be ridiculous. Only one word remains on it. There is no text to identify the four figures on the floor as the four sons of Horus or as canopic jars. The "deceased" is not named. Never mind that the fellow on the bier is not only not fully on the bier but that he also is clothed and very much alive!

What I find absolutely hilarious is that those who dare to attempt to translate the word and reconstruct the sentence avoid using the word that fits and substitutes another that "it has to be." Most people won't even touch that line. Why? It is because it appears possibly a single, bi-syllabic, abbreviated word. The fuller form of the word has to do with offering or sacrifice. So, to avoid that oddball reference to sacrifice in a funerary vignette one has to interpret it as something else like "justification," as Ritner did.

I know of two words that could fit in that space. One is abbreviated, and the other is not considered abbreviated (although it really is but its regular use was two characters from old times). One assumes an 'm' and the other assumes a badly written 'r' alphabetic character. The 'arm' character is not disputed. It is an 'arm' alphabetic character. But, both m3^c and rdj (the final syllabic in this word also being represented by an 'arm' character and the word abbreviated in written form) actually refer to offering or sacrifice. That is incongruous with this sort of vignette, if it truly is funerary in nature.

Facsimile 2 has interesting connections in Egyptian thought with ideas given to them by Joseph Smith. There are an assortment of such discussions but no professional Egyptologists I am aware of have addressed the connections, preferring instead to focus on literal, surface/primary meanings of words and phrases. I have to say for myself, though, that the connections are interesting.

Facsimile 3, long held to be a judgment scene by many, actually isn't. It is not a judgment scene, it is a presentation scene. A judgment scene either has the scales of Thoth or some representation thereof, or has text directly speaking of judgment. Neither is present in Facsimile 3. One can compare one of the finest copies of the Book of Breathing to see what I mean. The Papyrus of Kerasher actually had both a presentation scene and a judgment scene on it.

A number of copies of the Book of Breathing had more than one vignette at the end, so if there was a judgment vignette on it it is forever lost. But, speaking of lost things, were you aware that translating the words above the 'Isis' figure actually do not say "Isis"? That is a reconstruction. The same for the 'Anubis' figure in Facsimile 3. There is an important letter missing that would have made it actually say "Anubis" in it. "Anubis" is a reconstruction and then a translation of that reconstruction, not a translation of the relevant word in the column.

There is a gap between the text near the 'Osiris' figure and another column that is next to the 'Maat' figure. Sometimes, these gaps are significant because they isolate one complete text from another. What does that mean? I'm am not completely sure at the moment. It is unusual, to be sure.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that the column of text above and in front of the 'Osiris figure does not actually identify the person as Osiris. It identifies the phrase as being "the words of Osiris" but then there are no words. They are missing. Then there is the gap I mentioned, followed by another text with no clear owner. The text above the deceased does identify the person as the owner of the Book of Breathing: "Osiris Horos, the justified forever."

But, as to having the facsimiles there, I do not have a problem with it. If the Horos scroll had another text bound in with the Book of Breathing, it is easy to see why they were included. It also opens up to the possibility that alternative interpretations of the vignettes were written further into the roll, in the second text, that gives alternative meanings to the vignettes in the work before. That is why it is that certain people are so desirous to make this second text go away by shortening the roll of Horos to the point that a Book of Abraham could not have been hidden within it after the Book of Breathing. But, the first winding is about 10.5 cm. That leaves enough room for just over 7 meters of total scroll, depending upon how tightly wound the original was. They usually were tightly wound and sealed with bitumen.

The roll were said to have been in a state of perfect preservation. That certainly does not describe the Horos scroll, but could describe the interior papyrus that was not damaged. What gets me most is that Facsimile 2 even got into the Book of Abraham. Didn't anybody notice that it did not belong to the Book of Breathing? No one said anything. If it were included in the original roll it would have been the most bizarre Book of Breathing ever. But, no one seemed to notice that it came from anywhere else. That is curious to me. It also may be relevant.

I am rambling now but there is a whole lot more that could be said about this situation.

Edited September 27, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

More from Don's paper.

Bold mine.

Too bad we can't confirm it and that it only is in the realm of belief.