Boa Correction Theory, Why Didn'T Joseph Know?

[MormonMason]

I am about to re-read the very short spiel on the practice of Egyptian Religion in Ur and so forth in the book under discussion. Arguing for a southern Ur is a very bad idea considering that the Bible states that Haran is in the land of Abraham's birthplace, namely located in the region of Aram-Naharaim. That better fits a northern Ur and is in the region of northern Syria, near modern-day Turkey.

The author gives his basic reasons for neither location being of much help for the Book of Abraham and at least does this because there is little certainty about the location of Ur although the author leans to the southern Ur. He is right that there is little to no Egyptian influence in the region postulated for the southern Ur. But, he tries to make it seem like there is little evidence of Egyptian influence in the north, too. He also makes effort to discuss the sheer number of candidates for Ur in the north. What the author seems to fail to tell readers however, is that this region did have Egyptian influence in the time of Abraham.

In fact, that is the region where Middle Eastern gods and goddesses were dressed like Egyptian gods and goddesses, just like the Book of Abraham claimed in 1842. A wonderful example is the goddess of Byblos/Gubal. She is a Middle Eastern goddess but is dressed to look like Hathor. It turns out that this same Hathor at Byblos was also worshipped in Egypt, the Egyptians referring to her in various texts.

Hathor was so widely loved that she was present everywhere Egyptians were found. The first indication of relations with Egypt exists in a fragment of stone bearing the cartouche of a Second Dynasty king, Khasekhemui, found at Byblos on the Lebanon Coast.

The ancient seaport of Byblos worshipped a local goddess, Baalat-Gebal, and it was her temple that was its first large building in 2800 B.C. A few centuries later (corresponding at the latest to the Fifth Dynasty in Egypt but possibly earlier) this goddess appears in the art of Byblos depicted exactly like Hathor, dressed in a slim sheath of a dress and wearing on her heard the solar disk and cow's horns. The constant visits by Egyptian officials and seamen and the probable establishment of an Egyptian mercantile and diplomatic community at Byblos would have introduced the Egyptian's most popular goddess to the host community, which itself was ruled by a powerful goddess. Obviously, the two communities came to think of their goddesses as one and the same, and the Egyptians referred to theirs as Hathor, Lady of Byblos. This title became well known in Egypt, and there are numerous monuments to Hathor in Egypt which cite her as Lady of Byblos...

(Barbara S. Lesko, The Great Goddesses of Egypt [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999], 97).

We can also find evidence of Middle Eastern gods and goddesses being dressed as Egyptian ones even in Egypt. As one example, I once had the opportunity to look at a votive inscription that stated clearly that Anath was the goddess of one of the pharaohs. That Middle Eastern goddess in the inscription was actually dressed like Osiris! Go figure.

The inscription between and above the two figures reads: "^cAnath, Lady of Heaven (and) of Ramesessu Meri-Amun" Notice she is wearing the Atef crown most often seen on Osiris.

I may have more to say and/or to clarify on this chapter once I have finished my re-reading, time constraints excepting, of course.

Edited to post image of inscription mentioned above and also to add a quote from a book written by an Egyptologist.

Edited October 16, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Brief moment to add to my post number 76. I finally had the time to finish reading again the chapter on Ur and various practices, etc. I still hold to the same assessment as I had read it the first time. Worse for anyone who holds to the view of a southern Ur for Abraham is the journey taken by Abraham's father. His father's intent to leave Ur was to go to Canaan. He only decided to stay in Haran after reaching Haran. But, if his intent were to go to Canaan why would he travel well over a thousand miles out of the way to do it?

There were highways that went straight to Canaan from Ur that had no need for stoppage at Haran, and which would have shaved over a thousand miles off of the trip. Travel to Canaan makes more sense for a northern Ur than for a southern Ur. If Ur was in the northern region it makes more sense that Abraham and family would pass through Haran to get to Canaan.

Take a look at the following map. Notice that you just don't stop off at Haran on your way to Canaan. You have to go out of your way additional miles just to do it.

It also would seem to make additional sense of Abraham's statement that the region in Aram-Naharaim was the birthplace of Abraham. But, notice also the highway between Babylon and Canaan. This was the most direct route and would have been only about 700 miles rather than the thousands to travel with the intended destination of Canaan from a southern Ur.

Worse for the claimants of the Southern Ur is the Bible's own statement about the land from whence Abraham came. The Bible states that it was across the Euphrates River. The Southern Ur is to the West of the Euphrates, meaning that it isn't on the other side of the Euphrates. The proposed and traditional Northern Ur, on the other hand, is on the other side of the Euphrates River in the original Mesopotamia, Aram-Naharaim.

On the other hand, if the place that local tradition holds is the birthplace of Abraham (Ur/Urfa/Sanliurfa) is the correct location, it is about 60 km from Haran/Harran and Haran is right on the way to Canaan, with no backtracking, extra thousands of miles travel distance, etc.

The interesting thing is that there definitely has been Egyptian influence in that northern region at various times (including the time of Abraham), including worship of the Middle Eastern goddess of Gubla/Byblos as Hathor by Egyptians. It is in this region that Middle Eastern gods and goddesses were dressed as Egyptian gods and goddesses. And, of course, evidence has also been found at various times in Egypt of the same kind of practice as the inscription above shows.

In my view, that is a bulls-eye for the Book of Abraham, in spite of the attempt of the book under review to slide that material under the rug and try to invalidate any possibility for the idea given us by the Book of Abraham.

Edited to add a map of the major roadways in the Levant and expand on my thoughts a bit.

Edited one more time to add that there is another, more serious issue with the southern Ur claim.

Edited May 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

OK. I had the time to either post here or to read the rest of Ritner's new book. I chose for the last few days to do the reading. I finished the reading so am briefly reporting what I found. I wanted to point out some specific details in some sections of the book but that would require my being home and in presence of my Egyptian materials to do so effectively. I am away and have no access to these materials for the foreseeable future. So, I won't go there for now for most of that material. As I have said above, I want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

It does have a couple unique items not yet found elsewhere except in private papers. I found quite a lot of complaining about this fact being wrong, about that non-Mormon Egyptologist being mistaken, repeated allusions to alleged plagiarism of various writers, etc. And yet I see some of the same kinds of misidentifications of sources and such in Ritner's own work as he makes accusation of others in their work.

There are some serious errors of identification of sources and such in the latter part of the book as well as in the plates at the end. One major problem is Ritner's misidentification of materials as being in the wrong collections. He refers to things on some of the pages that I do not seem to be able to see. In addition, several items that he refers to as being certain pages in "Valuable Discovery" materials but these do not belong to that part of the collection. "Valuable Discovery" is a notebook containing a few pages of written and copied material and the rest of the pages blank. Ritner's pages 12-14 of "Valuable Discovery" do not come from "Valuable Discovery." They are loose sheets that are separate manuscripts from entirely separate parts of the collection.

He also conflates and combines material from the two separate "Valuable Discovery" and Frederick G. Williams (labelled with "F.G.W." and "Williams" on one cover and mathematics on the other) notebooks into one source. They are in reality Kirtland Egyptian Manuscripts # 6 and #7, respectively. It is permissible to label the former "Valuable Discovery" but to conflate the latter and unconnected manuscripts into the former is not acceptable.

Page 12 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #9, measuring 39 x 19 cm. Page 13 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really part of the Book of Abraham Manuscript collection, and consists of four variously sized pages all connected to Facsimile 2. Page 14 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #8, measuring 32 x 40 cm.

Page 2 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 1 of "Valuable Discovery" ignoring the flyleaf. Page 6 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 3 of the "F.G.W. Williams" notebook. Page 4 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 5 thereof (though labelled "3"). Page 7 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 5 of the "F.G.W. Williams" notebook. He did the same thing with the Figure 1 reference on page 84 of his new book. He identifies that source as Valuable Discovery p.11. It isn't. Page 11 in "Valuable discovery" is one of a number of blank pages. Figure 1 is really taken from the 3rd extant leaf of Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #5 (labelled as page "4" and possibly indicating a lost "page 3"), in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

Rather than use the official designations for the papers and manuscripts, he instead relies on the faulty page numbering and jumbled order of the Tanners' badly named "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar." The major problem is that the Tanners published that thing out of proper order with the components of the collections jumbled together with the "Valuable Discovery" materials when they were not originally together as one source. Moreover, the "Valuable Discovery" notebook and "F.G.W. Williams" notebook are two separately bound books that Ritner conflates into a single "Valuable Discovery," along with a page from a Book of Abraham Manuscript in the Book of Abraham Manuscripts collection.

A little 'due diligence' would have spared him some of these errors but he relied on the Tanner (mis)pagination instead. There is zero excuse for these kinds of errors, especially considering the fact that Ritner and publisher used higher resolution photos of the actual documents in question. It is not too hard to tell that these materials come from differing manuscripts and notebooks from those high resolution photos.

Well, that is all for now regarding this book. It is time to put it away and focus more on other things of more value, as well as posting from time to time here, in the little spare time I have left most of the time.

Edited October 15, 2012 by MormonMason

[rodheadlee]

Thanks for taking the time to post.

[Calm]

OK. I had the time to either post here or to read the rest of Ritner's new book. I chose for the last few days to do the reading. I finished the reading so am briefly reporting what I found. I wanted to point out some specific details in some sections of the book but that would require my being home and in presence of my Egyptian materials to do so effectively. I am away and have no access to these materials for the foreseeable future. So, I won't go there for now for most of that material. As I have said above, I want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

Wow, I'd like to see what you could do with all of your materials at hand (not that it would likely mean much to me, but it is always enjoyable to watch a true artist at work, whether it is with paints or words or evidences). Very impressive (as always), even with having limited resources.

[MormonMason]

Wow, I'd like to see what you could do with all of your materials at hand (not that it would likely mean much to me, but it is always enjoyable to watch a true artist at work, whether it is with paints or words or evidences). Very impressive (as always), even with having limited resources.

I'd be able to do a lot more. Thank you for your kind words. I would try to make it so that it would mean more to you than it might otherwise. Some of the discussion would also include lessons on how Egyptian words are and can be abbreviated to make them fit in various spaces and/or for aesthetic reasons. It is pertinent to any discussion of the Ptolemaic Joseph Smith Papyri. I try to make it as much fun as possible when I do it.

Edited October 16, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Thanks for taking the time to post.

You are welcome. I wish I had more time to do more, though.

[Calm]

I'd be able to do a lot more. Thank you for your kind words. I would try to make it so that it would mean more to you than it might otherwise. Some of the discussion would also include lessons on how Egyptian words are and can be abbreviated to make them fit in various spaces and/or for aesthetic reasons. It is pertinent to any discussion of the Ptolemaic Joseph Smith Papyri. I try to make it as much fun as possible when I do it.

I read all your posts. I love this board, get a great education for free.

[why me]

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 don't think that Joseph Smith could have written the BoA. His gift for writing was limited. Now could have someone else have written it? Maybe Sidney? But Joseph did not have to translate anything else to convince people that he was a prophet. Nor did he have to take such a risk with BoA.

We need to look at the big picture.

[Tacenda]

I don't think that Joseph Smith could have written the BoA. His gift for writing was limited. Now could have someone else have written it? Maybe Sidney? But Joseph did not have to translate anything else to convince people that he was a prophet. Nor did he have to take such a risk with BoA.

We need to look at the big picture.

Maybe he spoke it and Sidney edited and refined the BoA. I believe JS had a keen mind.

[why me]

Maybe he spoke it and Sidney edited and refined the BoA. I believe JS had a keen mind.

I dobut it. Sidney would then have to be on the fraud from the beginning which would leave 12 in on the fraud from the very beginning and yet, never given the fraud up.

[Tacenda]

I dobut it. Sidney would then have to be on the fraud from the beginning which would leave 12 in on the fraud from the very beginning and yet, never given the fraud up.

I'm simply stating that JS received revelation and Sidney or OC could have written it down. Or what JS thought was revelation.

[wenglund]

OK. I had the time to either post here or to read the rest of Ritner's new book. I chose for the last few days to do the reading. I finished the reading so am briefly reporting what I found. I wanted to point out some specific details in some sections of the book but that would require my being home and in presence of my Egyptian materials to do so effectively. I am away and have no access to these materials for the foreseeable future. So, I won't go there for now for most of that material. As I have said above, I want to go through it with a fine-toothed comb.

It does have a couple unique items not yet found elsewhere except in private papers. I found quite a lot of complaining about this fact being wrong, about that non-Mormon Egyptologist being mistaken, repeated allusions to alleged plagiarism of various writers, etc. And yet I see some of the same kinds of misidentifications of sources and such in Ritner's own work as he makes accusation of others in their work.

There are some serious errors of identification of sources and such in the latter part of the book as well as in the plates at the end. One major problem is Ritner's misidentification of materials as being in the wrong collections. He refers to things on some of the pages that I do not seem to be able to see. In addition, several items that he refers to as being certain pages in "Valuable Discovery" materials but these do not belong to that part of the collection. "Valuable Discovery" is a notebook containing a few pages of written and copied material and the rest of the pages blank. Ritner's pages 12-14 of "Valuable Discovery" do not come from "Valuable Discovery." They are loose sheets that are separate manuscripts from entirely separate parts of the collection.

He also conflates and combines material from the two separate "Valuable Discovery" and Frederick G. Williams (labelled with "F.G.W." and "Williams" on one cover and mathematics on the other) notebooks into one source. They are in reality Kirtland Egyptian Manuscripts # 6 and #7, respectively. It is permissible to label the former "Valuable Discovery" but to conflate the latter and unconnected manuscripts into the former is not acceptable.

Page 12 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #9, measuring 39 x 19 cm. Page 13 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really part of the Book of Abraham Manuscript collection, and consists of four variously sized pages all connected to Facsimile 2. Page 14 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #8, measuring 32 x 40 cm.

Page 2 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 1 of "Valuable Discovery" ignoring the flyleaf. Page 6 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 3 of the "F.G.W. Williams" notebook. Page 4 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 5 thereof (though labelled "3"). Page 7 that Ritner assigns to "Valuable Discovery" is really page 5 of the "F.G.W. Williams" notebook. He did the same thing with the Figure 1 reference on page 84 of his new book. He identifies that source as Valuable Discovery p.11. It isn't. Page 11 in "Valuable discovery" is one of a number of blank pages. Figure 1 is really taken from the 3rd extant leaf of Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #5 (labelled as page "4" and possibly indicating a lost "page 3"), in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

Rather than use the official designations for the papers and manuscripts, he instead relies on the faulty page numbering and jumbled order of the Tanners' badly named "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar." The major problem is that the Tanners published that thing out of proper order with the components of the collections jumbled together with the "Valuable Discovery" materials when they were not originally together as one source. Moreover, the "Valuable Discovery" notebook and "F.G.W. Williams" notebook are two separately bound books that Ritner conflates into a single "Valuable Discovery," along with a page from a Book of Abraham Manuscript in the Book of Abraham Manuscripts collection.

A little 'due diligence' would have spared him some of these errors but he relied on the Tanner (mis)pagination instead. There is zero excuse for these kinds of errors, especially considering the fact that Ritner and publisher used higher resolution photos of the actual documents in question. It is not too hard to tell that these materials come from differing manuscripts and notebooks from those high resolution photos.

Well, that is all for now regarding this book. It is time to put it away and focus more on other things of more value, as well as posting from time to time here, in the little spare time I have left most of the time.

Very interesting. I, too, am enjoying your insights.

However, do you see these errors as suggesting more than just a lapse in scholarship, but as also, to some extent, flaws in Ritner's arguments and conclusions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't think that Joseph Smith could have written the BoA. His gift for writing was limited. Now could have someone else have written it? Maybe Sidney? But Joseph did not have to translate anything else to convince people that he was a prophet. Nor did he have to take such a risk with BoA.

We need to look at the big picture.

In 1835, when the Egyptian papyri arrived in Kirtland, Sidney Rigdon had several years previously been involved as a scribe in the revised translation of the Bible (which includes the Book of Moses and other revelations), and was, at that time, a part of the committee to collect and publish the Book of Commandments (D&C). However, from what I have seen in my research, he wasn't at all involved with the BoA or even the so-called Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Rather, Joseph utilized various other scribes, such as Oliver Cowdery, WW Phelps, Fredrick G. Williams, Warren Parrish, and later in the 1840's, Willard Richards.

As for whether Joseph or one of his scribes could have invented the BoA at that time, and aside from praying to God for answers (which is the rightful and best source for this kind of appeal), I believe the content of the BoA provides the best clue. The more that scholars study the content and compare it with what is now known about the Abrahamic story as contrasted to what Joseph and his scribes may have likely known at the time, at the very least it should give great pause in thinking the BoA was a 19th century invention. I am not just talking about certain explicit aspects of the Abraham story, like the attempted sacrifice of his life, but even more so the somewhat hidden symbolisms (particularly related to the temples of old).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

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 find the apologetic dancing, ducking, and dodging with regard to the BofA to be fascinating.

In the instance of the BofA, I find the application of Occam's Razor to be particularly useful. Yes, you can make all types of assumptions, create all kinds of scenarios (both logical and illogical), and pass along conjecture in an attempt to refute the findings of an overwhelming number of egyptologists and experts who have concluded that the scrolls and the BofA have nothing to do with one another, or you can simply look at the facts and admit that Joseph Smith may have been incorrect regarding the BofA.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

look at the facts and admit that Joseph Smith may have been incorrect regarding the BofA.

You know this is interesting. I find that the critics are the ones that want to dismiss the facts. But hey, I guess if some one were totally ignorant they might think you have a slam dunk argument on your hands.

The turth is that the overwhelming majority of Egyptologist don't care about the BoA and have never made an agument for or against it.

[wenglund]

I find the apologetic dancing, ducking, and dodging with regard to the BofA to be fascinating.

In the instance of the BofA, I find the application of Occam's Razor to be particularly useful. Yes, you can make all types of assumptions, create all kinds of scenarios (both logical and illogical), and pass along conjecture in an attempt to refute the findings of an overwhelming number of egyptologists and experts who have concluded that the scrolls and the BofA have nothing to do with one another, or you can simply look at the facts and admit that Joseph Smith may have been incorrect regarding the BofA.

There is an important distinction between Occum's Razor and Over Simplification. Certain critics suppose they are engaged in the former, while actually engaged in the latter.

For example, given all that may likely have been known by Joseph and his fellow saints in the 1830's and 40's, what is to be made of the astronomical facts contained in Abraham 3, and their remarkable symbolisms, especially when juxtaposed in relation to the creation narratives in the chapters that follow?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

I read all your posts. I love this board, get a great education for free.

It is appreciated. Just trying to help. What is bothersome to me at times is, when I end up having time and come back to threads to post replies I find some of them locked before I can write anything. I hate leaving loose ends. Just wish I had more time so I could avoid such troubles. I am sure that some people are glad of it, though.

[MormonMason]

Very interesting. I, too, am enjoying your insights.

However, do you see these errors as suggesting more than just a lapse in scholarship, but as also, to some extent, flaws in Ritner's arguments and conclusions?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There were several times, while perusing the volume, I found myself scratching my head more than once trying to figure out where he was getting some things from and why he was coming up with some of the arguments he made. It was particularly annoying to see him drone on and on about alleged acts of plagiarism or reference without attribution of his work and how this Egyptologist or that Egyptologist was mistaken or misread this or that text, that he is right when everybody else is wrong, particularly when some of things they were "reading" were reconstructions of text rather than actual text.

His continued insistence in this day and age that there was only one hand elevated when the evidence of the papyrus suggests two and shows that Richard Parker and others did not take into account the actual dimensions of the papyrus fragment that became Facsimile 1 would not allow for their reconstructions. Lanny D. Bell gives his reasoning as to why he has decided that there were two hands up. Ritner seemingly ignores it and continues with the tired-out material. Ritner attempted to give himself a potential out for the lack of room for the second bird, though. He made the suggestion that it was a winged solar disk rather than a second bird. He cites two examples but the interesting thing about those examples is that they were nearly identical to one another and were completely different in just about every way from P. JS-I (or as more modern Egyptologists are wont to refer to fragments using decimals, P. JS 1.1)!

In both those examples, there is a mummified body at the bottom, inside a shrine (with or without Hathor on top of that) with the winged solar disk hovering over the shrine or Hathor's back. He, however, could not produce a single example of a configuration that would allow for a winged solar disk hovering over the figure on the bier in P. JS-I (P. JS 1.1). He knows full well that the first vignette in the Horos scroll isn't that of an embalming or burial scene (even though the hieroglyphic text surrounding the vignette speaks of a burial) so he must work to find anything or everything, and use considerable mental gymnastics to do it, that would make the first vignette a standard resurrection or resuscitation scene. But there is nothing "standard" about it!

The guy is hardly some "dead guy" being resuscitated; he is very much alive and still clothed and accessorized. He is not even actually on the bier, except for his back alone. His legs are off the bier with the priest standing between his legs and the bier. He does not have a hand at his side that would show that the guy is dead and returning to life. (Hand with palm to face indicates mourning but also of rising in a state of mourning or of waking from sleep, and hand or hands at side indicates inaction such as caused by death). In resuscitation scenes where no hands are up to the face, the body is mummiform and the figure inclined toes tip of foot downward, clasping symbols of rulership to his breast with the body bending upward on the bier. As we know, there is none of that going on in the first vignette of the Horos scroll.

Both hands are elevated. And, the angle of both hands is wrong for a resuscitation scene. Even if we accepted Ritner's insistence in the face of the evidence that there is only one hand and that the other was a winged something or other, the angle of the one hand that everybody agrees is a hand is in the wrong position relative to the face to fit a resuscitation scene! Good luck ever getting Ritner to admit that. And, then in light of the scene itself is the remainder of a word in the extant column that itself fits a context of sacrifice or being fit for offering. Ritner cannot get rid of that word so he has to translate it as "justification" to further make it fit a resurrection or resuscitation context.

Unfortunately, Ritner still does not provide any evidence supporting his translation of the extant word. He translates m3^c as "justification," whereas the phrase m m3^c ḫrw (or, as some would transcribe it, m m3^c-ḫrw) in Egyptian--and in a few places in the Joseph Smith Papyri themselves!--actually means something like "justification." There is a word m3^c that in various contexts can carry the meaning of being "fit for offering." Notice, however, that Ritner avoids discussion of that.

The other problem with Ritner's translation is that it would require three columns (unless he can provide examples to the contrary in known Ptolemaic papyri) and there is no room for another column following the extant one. Also problematic is the remnant of the letter preceding the extant word. It is a remnant of a 't' and not an 'm', so the possibility of this phrase (m m3^c ḫrw "justification") being correct is out. Further problematic is that words written in forms that might fit a context of "justification" aren't to be, and, as I see it, can't be abbreviated the way we see m3^c in the extant column of the first vignette of the Horos scroll.

In my opinion, Ritner is between a rock and a hard place on this but perhaps we'll see what the future brings.

Edited October 16, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Maybe he spoke it and Sidney edited and refined the BoA. I believe JS had a keen mind.

I have seen no real evidence at all that Rigdon was involved in any great length with the Book of Abraham translation, and plenty of evidence against. I have seen no journal or other accounts that would allow for such to have been the case or that even mention him in connection with it. Those who were scribes to Joseph Smith at the time clearly state that they recorded what Joseph Smith dictated. Perhaps someone else might know of even one that might lend credence to such an hypothesis?