Boa Correction Theory, Why Didn'T Joseph Know?

[yootaw]

So, very simply put, the Facsimiles don't seem to have any direct connection to the text Book of Abraham found in the triple combination, and may only be connected to the BoA only in that they could have been part of a larger group of scrolls that may have contained the text of the BoA. Also, not all of the Facsimiles appear to be part of the Book of Breathing. Is that a fair summary? If so, I think that the question is still valid. The description of the facsimiles in the BoA is "A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM". Why include the Fascilimiles in the BoA, as part of the BoA if they are essentially not related to the BoA?

[MormonMason]

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?

The only way to be able to clearly and absolutely to say he was wrong would be to have access to the entire collection of papyri that Joseph Smith had in his possession. We don't have all of the collection. The evidence is so fragmented that no one can make a really good case that he was. There is not enough for anyone to make a good enough case to stick withe a verdict--on either side. Those who say otherwise are selling you something. John A. Wilson had something of interest to say about this whole situation. I was quite surprised when I read it. He writes:

A valid counterargument for the faithful would be that we Egyptologists can claim no inspiration. We can only scrape the surface meaning. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, he was an instrument of divine authority, so that he might find the deepest meaning. Although our work deals with fact, we must respect faith. As the Protestant world survived the Higher Criticism of the Bible three generations ago, the Mormons will survive this criticism.

(John A. Wilson, Thousands of Years: An Archaeologist's Search for Ancient Egypt [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972], 177).

[MormonMason]

So, very simply put, the Facsimiles don't seem to have any direct connection to the text Book of Abraham found in the triple combination, and may only be connected to the BoA only in that they could have been part of a larger group of scrolls that may have contained the text of the BoA. Also, not all of the Facsimiles appear to be part of the Book of Breathing. Is that a fair summary? If so, I think that the question is still valid. The description of the facsimiles in the BoA is "A FACSIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM". Why include the Fascilimiles in the BoA, as part of the BoA if they are essentially not related to the BoA?

You have my position completely mixed up and misunderstood. I am not postulating a larger group of scrolls. What I am saying is that the Book of Breathing and Book of Abraham were on the same scroll, with the Book of Breathing first. Such an arrangement explains a lot of the evidence and fits with both the written evidence and the eyewitness evidence. It is a sort of middle-of-the-road approach. And, what I am also saying is that they were made to be of use to the Book of Abraham, regardless of what the text in Facsimiles 2 and 3 actually do and don't say.

I also am saying that the first vignette, the one that became Facsimile 1, betters fits with the Book of Abraham than it does with the Book of Breathing to which it was attached. A living man on a bier (altars were also made in the shapes of biers in both Egypt and elsewhere) is not fully on the bier, with the priest between the man and the bier at the feet (only the back is on the bier), fully clothed with anklets, with the hands cast upward, not in the standard way in which a single hand is placed close to the face and one arm to the side, and not in the proper angle as found in resurrection scenes, with a word referring to offering or sacrifice in the middle of it all, fits better with the story of the Book of Abraham than to embalming of the deceased or resurrection of the deceased. Why is this vignette so unique among Egyptian literature? This is a question that seemingly is more easily answered by the Book of Abraham than by the Book of Breathing.

Edited September 27, 2012 by MormonMason

[yootaw]

Thank you for clarifying your perspective.

[volgadon]

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?

I'm not sure it sounds like you want answers that go against your doubts, but hope I am wrong on this.

[Tacenda]

I'm not sure it sounds like you want answers that go against your doubts, but hope I am wrong on this.

There are no answers, just debates and you know how they go.

[yootaw]

I'm not sure it sounds like you want answers that go against your doubts, but hope I am wrong on this.

Can you provide answers that don't require mental gymnastics to make sense? I know that apologetic arguments supporting the BoA work for some, but for me these arguments seem to be hollow in the presence of what we do know, and can verify.

[volgadon]

Can you provide answers that don't require mental gymnastics to make sense?

Only if you are able to come up with a viable, cogent definition of "mental gymnastics" which doesn't allow you to poo pah answers you don't like.

I know that apologetic arguments supporting the BoA work for some, but for me these arguments seem to be hollow in the presence of what we do know, and can verify.

The thing is, we know and can verify rather a lot. Much of it has not been gathered under one roof yet or formulated at length, but there are good answers for all aspects of the BoA, be it why a Jewish text would use Egyptian images; why an Egyptian priest would have a work on Abraham; cosmology; angeleology; messianism; etc...

[volgadon]

There are no answers, just debates and you know how they go.

So why do you insist that we adopt one side of the debate as THE answer?

[Tacenda]

So why do you insist that we adopt one side of the debate as THE answer?

I don't see how I insisted on picking sides. The arguments are usually beyond my comprehension anyway. I think when the debate runs on and on, that should tell you that there might not be an answer. Just like the debate on BofM lands. We need to put it to rest until we have concrete evidence. And it needs to carry some weight.

[volgadon]

I don't see how I insisted on picking sides. The arguments are usually beyond my comprehension anyway. I think when the debate runs on and on, that should tell you that there might not be an answer. Just like the debate on BofM lands. We need to put it to rest until we have concrete evidence. And it needs to carry some weight.

Doesn't post #19 sound awfully like taking sides?

[Storm Rider]

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.

I will take this up with God on our next chat,

"God, look at it from our angle. You do a lousy job of make things clear for us. If you are going to talk to a prophet you must, you are required, that you explain everything to him so that he understands what he is doing right from the beginning. None of this holding back information that we see throughout history. You do realize that you don't really do a very good job of being God, right? Yeah, yeah, we are supposed to live by faith, blah, blah, blah. However, you don't have to make it so hard. By the way, do you think we really needed mosquitoes or ticks in this world? What were you thinking!?! If you get confused again, just ask us because we humans, we really know what we are doing down here. I mean, look what a great job we do with our own lives, communities, and countries. Why would you ever doubt we don't know what is best?"

You will have to excuse me when I roll my eyes every time I see, hear, or read about this concept that it could have been done better. What does walk by faith mean to you?

[Saints Alive]

You will have to excuse me when I roll my eyes every time I see, hear, or read about this concept that it could have been done better. What does walk by faith mean to you?

Well walking by faith is one thing, but if we have facsimiles that are said to be the actual BoA and it turns out they have nothing to do with it, it makes you wonder why they are there. If Joseph could have a revelation on the Apocrypha you would thing he would have some knowledge about what it appears he thought he was reading. Nothing I have read suggests that Joseph though he was doing anything but translating the original BoA. If we take the catalyst theory off the list we can say that there may have been more that Joseph was actually translating from but then why are the facsimiles with the interpretation of them still included? even more so if the egyptologist are correct and they don't mean what we think they mean.

[MormonMason]

Well walking by faith is one thing, but if we have facsimiles that are said to be the actual BoA and it turns out they have nothing to do with it, it makes you wonder why they are there. If Joseph could have a revelation on the Apocrypha you would thing he would have some knowledge about what it appears he thought he was reading. Nothing I have read suggests that Joseph though he was doing anything but translating the original BoA. If we take the catalyst theory off the list we can say that there may have been more that Joseph was actually translating from but then why are the facsimiles with the interpretation of them still included? even more so if the egyptologist are correct and they don't mean what we think they mean.

The facsimiles are there because they were on the same roll as the Book of Abraham. They were used to portray something concerning the story told in the Book of Abraham. And, there are other examples of alternate uses of funerary vignettes among other papyri, which uses do not match up with the original contents and concepts contained in the vignettes. These also date to roughly the same period as our Horos Book of Breathing.

By the way, to be perfectly clear, Egyptologists do not tell us what they mean, only what the text says on the surface. No one really knows the full meanings behind a lot of the words. The culture still is alien to us in many respects. We have lots of texts but not very many that give us the actual, underlying, cultural meanings behind a lot of it. Text outside of cultural context tells us precious little about what the Egyptians really thought in day-to-day life. This is particularly so when we consider that we are trying to interpret Egyptian thought and life through scattered funerary papyri. It would be like trying to reconstruct the lives and day-to-day thinking of LDS Americans using only sets of LDS scriptures. There is a whole lot that we do not know. Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something.

That quote from a non-LDS Egyptologist, who had no ax to grind, again:

A valid counterargument for the faithful would be that we Egyptologists can claim no inspiration. We can only scrape the surface meaning. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, he was an instrument of divine authority, so that he might find the deepest meaning. Although our work deals with fact, we must respect faith. As the Protestant world survived the Higher Criticism of the Bible three generations ago, the Mormons will survive this criticism.

(John A. Wilson, Thousands of Years: An Archaeologist's Search for Ancient Egypt [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972], 177).

Edited September 27, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

All men are flawed. It is the human condition.

[wenglund]

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.

Tis true. This issue has attracted several closed-minded and unreasonable demagogues who are frequently trumpeting their imagined successes--putting the rest of us in mind of Monty Python's Black Knight.

Fortunately, critically-minded people give little credence to these kinds of hyper-inflated egos.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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?

I was speaking about the text of the Book of Abraham, and not the facsimile.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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?

That would be an uncritical, knee-jerk approach.

Some of us prefer, instead, a fair and rational and informed approach where we reserve judgment until we are in an appropriate position to do so. This tends to minimize the chance of ironically making mistakes ourselves.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

By the way, to be perfectly clear, Egyptologists do not tell us what they mean, only what the text says on the surface. No one really knows the full meanings behind a lot of the words. The culture still is alien to us in many respects. We have lots of texts but not very many that give us the actual, underlying, cultural meanings behind a lot of it. Text outside of cultural context tells us precious little about what the Egyptians really thought in day-to-day life. This is particularly so when we consider that we are trying to interpret Egyptian thought and life through scattered funerary papyri. It would be like trying to reconstruct the lives and day-to-day thinking of LDS Americans using only sets of LDS scriptures. There is a whole lot that we do not know. Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something.

This salient point is made all the more profound when one realizes just how symbolic the ancient Egyptians may have been in their thinking, particularly those that were influenced by Hebrew thought--where individual words and phrases may have layers and layers of meaning, some of which were intentionally hidden in plain sight behind the obvious meaning.

Hence, four jars, which may customarily represent the four sons of Horus may also have the intended meaning of four gods and/or the four quarters of the earth, or the four seasons. And the glyph that may customarily represent the ground (the earth beneath one's feet), could also be a metaphor for the firmament or heavens (as with #12 in Facsimile #1)--i.e. "on earth as it is in heaven."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[yootaw]

Only if you are able to come up with a viable, cogent definition of "mental gymnastics" which doesn't allow you to poo pah answers you don't like.

The thing is, we know and can verify rather a lot. Much of it has not been gathered under one roof yet or formulated at length, but there are good answers for all aspects of the BoA, be it why a Jewish text would use Egyptian images; why an Egyptian priest would have a work on Abraham; cosmology; angeleology; messianism; etc...

I doubt that we could come up with a definition that would satisfy both of us, so I am content to let it drop.

[Thinking]

None of the actual Book of Abraham is available to anyone. The original is gone.

Abraham 1:12

[MormonMason]

Abraham 1:12

Yes, it was at the front of the roll containing the Books of Breathing and of Abraham. Your point? The entire rest of the roll and, therefore, the text of Abraham in the original, is gone. My point still stands.

[yootaw]

Yes, it was at the front of the roll containing the Books of Breathing and of Abraham. Your point? The entire rest of the roll and, therefore, the text of Abraham in the original, is gone. My point still stands.

The way I read that scripture, the Facsimile must be considered a part of the BoA.

[Saints Alive]

So if I may summarize: The facsimiles are not literally the story of Abraham but may have been used by Abraham or a later person, barrowed from another text, and used to represent the story of Abraham. Is that somewhat correct?

[CA Steve]

Yes, it was at the front of the roll containing the Books of Breathing and of Abraham. Your point? The entire rest of the roll and, therefore, the text of Abraham in the original, is gone. My point still stands.

So when it come to the papyri we really don't know the true intent of the facsimiles but we understand the hieratic text well enough to reject the extant pieces as the source of the Book of Abraham text?