The Book Of Abraham: An End To The Apologetic War (Pt. 1)

[David Bokovoy]

Juliann, please note that I did not state that apologists or critics are "lying." I suggested that they both are unwittingly perpetuating "the" lie that one must choose between being critically minded or religious. Please note that in the same sentence I even referred to "well-meaning BYU religious instructors" and to "world-renowned secular Egyptologists." I think this this was a very kind way to refer to these two groups that unwittingly give the impression that one must choose between the two perspectives. As I suggested, this is a falsehood, a fairy tale and I stand by that statement, and though expressed forcefully, I did so in a way that I hope will reflect as kindly as possible on both groups.

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Bokovoy

[gtaggart]

Juliann, please note that I did not state that apologists or critics are "lying." I suggested that they both are unwittingly perpetuating "the" lie that one must choose between being critically minded or religious. Please note that in the same sentence I even referred to "well-meaning BYU religious instructors" and to "world-renowned secular Egyptologists." I think this this was a very kind way to refer to these two groups that unwittingly give the impression that one must choose between the two perspectives. As I suggested, this is a falsehood, a fairy tale and I stand by that statement, and though expressed forcefully, I did so in a way that I hope will reflect as kindly as possible on both groups.

But then there's the "recent highly problematic YouTube videos by BYU Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein" claim just hanging there sans explanation.

[David Bokovoy]

But then there's the "recent highly problematic YouTube videos by BYU Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein" claim just hanging there sans explanation.

They are highly problematic and unintentionally misrepresent key issues. Such as when Muhlestein suggests that the problem that non-LDS Egyptologists have with the BofA is that Joseph translated the text before Egyptologists scientifically deciphered Egyptian glyphs and it bothers them that there are people in the world that still accept Joseph's translation, etc., etc., etc. On this issue, I would invite anyone interested to read the book by Dr. Robert Ritner to see if THAT is the problem. Again, though well-intended, poorly done apologetics ultimately do more harm than good.

Best,

--DB

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Bokovoy

[ALarson]

I doubt you could find more than 1 out of 100 members who even know about one theory let alone different theories. Or cares. Some things take place academically or online....and stay there.

juliann, I completely agree.

But, I stated this:

"I believe that even with the new introduction, the Book of Abraham will still be one of the issues members have when they start digging a bit deeper into its origins,"

I agree that most active members aren't familiar with all the theories out there, but those who start searching for answers will find them. That's all I was trying to say here.

[wenglund]

From what I have read of David's article, the power of his arguments, as with most any argument, is somewhat contingent upon the extent to which the reader agrees with his underlining assumptions and premises. Those people who agree with David's assumptions and premises, will tend to agree with his conclusions, and for them, the so-called apologetic war may be over.

The good news is, David is able to end the "war" in such a way that like thinkers are able to retain faith in the restored gospel and Joseph Smith as an inspired prophet of God.

For those, such as myself, who aren't entirely in agreement with David's assumptions and premises, the so-called "war" continues.

Yet, here, too, the good news is that many of us are able to continue in that "war" in a way that we are likewise able to retain faith in the restored gospel and the prophet Joseph Smith.

This means that regardless of whether David is able to end the "war" for you or not, there are ways of viewing the issue that allow for retention of LDS faith. And, to me, that is a very good thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

It seems that the wars indeed are not over.

Glenn

[gtaggart]

They are highly problematic and unintentionally misrepresent key issues. Such as when Muhlestein suggests that the problem that non-LDS Egyptologists have with the BofA is that Joseph translated the text before Egyptologists scientifically deciphered Egyptian glyphs and it bothers them that there are people in the world that still accept Joseph's translation, etc., etc., etc. On this issue, I would invite anyone interested to read the book by Dr. Robert Ritner to see if THAT is the problem. Again, though well-intended, poorly done apologetics ultimately do more harm than good.

Best,

--DB

I agree that argument--if that is Mulhestein's actual and only argument--is problematic. However, I just listened to that video again, and I don't think he intended to say that "that" is all that Egyptologists are concerned about, only that it bugs some of them that people like me still believe in the Book of Abraham. (By the way, for those interested, the video in question is "Other Egyptologists Opposed? Book of Abraham Challenge 9.")

He begins by saying that for the Egyptologists who do care about the BoA, "there's a particular rub." And then he says the the rub is that they can't believe that people still accept the BoA, given all Egyptologists know now. I don't think that claim is disputable. Vituperative doesn't begin to describe the BoA controversy. For some people, the rub has turned irritation into open sores. The problem is, Mulhestein--or his video editor--leaves it there, kind of. Remember that Muhlestein goes on to say that the Egyptologists who don't care and don't know much about the BoA controversy, assume that there are answers to the controversial questions because they know and respect Kerry and know that he is a believer. The unstated (or maybe it was stated) assumption is, well, if Kerry still believes it, there must be some credible answers.

The important point here, for my purposes, is that Muhlestein does allude to problems or questions in that particular video, he just doesn't discuss them. So, I agree with you that the video in question is poorly edited. However, I don't think that Muhlestein meant to argue that the "particular rub" was the only thing that bothered Egyptologists. He should re-edit the video to make that clearer.

What else bothered you?

Edited March 7, 2013 by gtaggart

[Bill Hamblin]

From what I have read of David's article, the power of his arguments, as with most any argument, is somewhat contingent upon the extent to which the reader agrees with his underlining assumptions and premises. Those people who agree with David's assumptions and premises, will tend to agree with his conclusions, and for them, the so-called apologetic war may be over.

The good news is, David is able to end the "war" in such a way that like thinkers are able to retain faith in the restored gospel and Joseph Smith as an inspired prophet of God.

For those, such as myself, who aren't entirely in agreement with David's assumptions and premises, the so-called "war" continues.

Yet, here, too, the good news is that many of us are able to continue in that "war" in a way that we are likewise able to retain faith in the restored gospel and the prophet Joseph Smith.

This means that regardless of whether David is able to end the "war" for you or not, there are ways of viewing the issue that allow for retention of LDS faith. And, to me, that is a very good thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The an even-handed application of the implications of David's assumptions about the Book of Abraham would necessarily undercut the historicity of the Book of Mormon too. Which, of course, all anti-Mormons understand quite clearly.

And, for that matter, applying these types of methods and assumptions consistently, we are left with no reason to accept the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus either.

There is an inevitable progress of increasing patterns of rejection of historicity once one starts down this path.

The reality is, of course, that literary theory and analysis tells us absolutely nothing about historicity. (e.g. Every one of the resurrection narratives might be completely garbled and textually corrupt and the resurrection might still have really occurred. And it is quite possible that we could have an original text of an eyewitness account of the resurrection, and it could be a hallucination an a lie.) Literary criticism can only tell us how a text develops. It can tell us nothing about the historical reality (or lack thereof) behind a text (be it fiction, delusion, fantasy, history). The fact that a text was written or edited in a certain way at a certain time tells us nothing about the events it purports to describe. History, paradoxically, is a subject that studies something that no longer exists--the past. Texts about the past are not the past.

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you for the comments. Despite the fact that I can no longer respond to direct questions, I hope that these thoughts will spark discussion and ultimately prove helpful for those struggling to make sense of their religious convictions in light of the BofA. I do not pretend to have all the answers, only a great love for the BofA and a desire to help others see beyond the arguments and recognize what a wonderful book it truly is. Again, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have no ill-will towards BYU religion teachers, Mormon apologists, Egyptologists, or even Church critics. I don't believe any of these people are "lying." The lie is that a person cannot be both critically minded and religious and despite the fact that I believe both apologists and critics have contributed to this perception, I believe that they have done so with sincere intent. I just believe that there is another way.

And with that, I'm going to turn my thoughts now to my 18.5 year old daughter who is opening her mission call today.

Warm wishes,

--DB

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Bokovoy

[stemelbow]

Thank you for the comments. Despite the fact that I can no longer respond to direct questions, I hope that these thoughts will spark discussion and ultimately prove helpful for those struggling to make sense of their religious convictions in light of the BofA. I do not pretend to have all the answers, only a great love for the BofA and a desire to help others see beyond the arguments and recognize what a wonderful book it truly is. Again, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have no ill-will towards BYU religion teachers, Mormon apologists, Egyptologists, or even Church critics. I don't believe any of these people are "lying." The lie is that a person cannot be both critically minded and religious and despite the fact that I believe both apologists and critics have contributed to this perception, I believe that they have done so with sincere intent. I just believe that there is another way.

And with that, I'm going to turn my thoughts now to my 18.5 year old daughter who is opening her mission call today.

Warm wishes,

--DB

wait a second....(doing math on my fingers) you must have been young. I must have forgotten to carry the one.

Congrats to her and you. Sounds exciting.

BTW you have ignited some interesting conversations of late.

[MichelleD]

I have just started reading information regarding the Book of Abraham. I have read several different points of views or "theories" and I'm trying to sort through all of it. My head is just kind of spinning at this point.

I have a question that might seem stupid to the more learned or experienced on here:

If Joseph Smith did not sincerely believe the papyri contained the actual history and writings of Abraham, would he have wanted to purchase them? Wasn't it quite a large sum of money to pay? Were there other reasons he would have felt purchasing them warranted the purchase?

Thanks for any responses or help!

[wenglund]

And with that, I'm going to turn my thoughts now to my 18.5 year old daughter who is opening her mission call today.

Warm wishes, --DB

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I have just started reading information regarding the Book of Abraham. I have read several different points of views or "theories" and I'm trying to sort through all of it. My head is just kind of spinning at this point.

I have a question that might seem stupid to the more learned or experienced on here:

If Joseph Smith did not sincerely believe the papyri contained the actual history and writings of Abraham, would he have wanted to purchase them? Wasn't it quite a large sum of money to pay? Were there other reasons he would have felt purchasing them warranted the purchase?

Thanks for any responses or help!

According to the History of the Church, the papyri were purchased by other people. I don't know if there is any more known than this:

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

KIRTLAND, July 6, 1835. This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL

H. CHANDLER,

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

Sunday 5.--I preached in the afternoon. Michael H. Barton tried to get into the Church, but he was not willing to confess and forsake all his sins--and he was rejected.

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.

http://www.boap.org/...e_Church/Vol_II

(Emphasis added)

Edited March 7, 2013 by cinepro

[Kenngo1969]

... And Ye Gods, I gotta say, as someone who has exactly zero interest in which team manages to put a ball through a hoop in the "cultural hall", I wish every side of this debate would drop the breathlessly eager "game-changer" rhetoric.)

But, Jeremy, what if we think your post is a Game Changer in this thread?

(Sorry. I had to do it! )

[MichelleD]

According to the History of the Church, the papyri were purchased by other people. I don't know if there is any more known than this:

I was not aware of any of that. Thanks Cinepro.

[wenglund]

I have just started reading information regarding the Book of Abraham. I have read several different points of views or "theories" and I'm trying to sort through all of it. My head is just kind of spinning at this point.

I have a question that might seem stupid to the more learned or experienced on here:

If Joseph Smith did not sincerely believe the papyri contained the actual history and writings of Abraham, would he have wanted to purchase them? Wasn't it quite a large sum of money to pay? Were there other reasons he would have felt purchasing them warranted the purchase?

Thanks for any responses or help!

Since cinepro had already cited what I had initially posted, let me re-edit my post so as to offer a different, though similar, quote. It is from the History written by John Whitmer, who was the church historian in 1835 when the papyri arrived in Kirtland:

"After this exhibition [of the papyri] Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2013 by wenglund

[teddyaware]

To clarify, I was talking about me, not you. Tryin' to acknowledge the fact that I'm no scholar myself, just an interested observer navigating between various overheated theories on either side of the aisle. I apologize if I came off as condescending; I've appreciated your work in the past, for instance your reply to Heiser.

It feels like I've been emotionally punched in the gut when someone totally misconstrues the intent of something I've written to them. Hopefully, Mr. Bokovoy will read your response and realize there was no disrespect intended. For what it's worth, I understood your self-depricating intent immediately. I also read loved Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri -- a true mind blower!

[gtaggart]

Thank you for the comments. Despite the fact that I can no longer respond to direct questions, I hope that these thoughts will spark discussion and ultimately prove helpful for those struggling to make sense of their religious convictions in light of the BofA. I do not pretend to have all the answers, only a great love for the BofA and a desire to help others see beyond the arguments and recognize what a wonderful book it truly is. Again, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have no ill-will towards BYU religion teachers, Mormon apologists, Egyptologists, or even Church critics. I don't believe any of these people are "lying." The lie is that a person cannot be both critically minded and religious and despite the fact that I believe both apologists and critics have contributed to this perception, I believe that they have done so with sincere intent. I just believe that there is another way.

And with that, I'm going to turn my thoughts now to my 18.5 year old daughter who is opening her mission call today.

Warm wishes,

--DB

David, if there's one thing I've come to understand about you--from interactions on this board and as a FB friend--it's that you are a genuinely good and kind person. As such, you might be interested to know that I am almost reflexively apologetic for apologists. I've seen too many good men and women maligned for their defense of the Restoration--and almost always, unfairly, in my estimation. Gee and Muhlestein get beat about the face and head almost regularly on boards like these. Nibley still takes punches, and he's been dead, what, nine years? And in each of thoses cases, the maligning almost always begins with their being Mormon because if a critic can "prove" they are Mormon, the critic doesn't have to deal with their arguments. Now, I'll grant that some arguments are better than others. But riddle me this: Why does the Mormon scholar always--ALWAYS--enter the debate at a disadvantage? That is, why is only the Mormon scholar biased?

[wenglund]

I have just started reading information regarding the Book of Abraham. I have read several different points of views or "theories" and I'm trying to sort through all of it. My head is just kind of spinning at this point.

I have a question that might seem stupid to the more learned or experienced on here:

If Joseph Smith did not sincerely believe the papyri contained the actual history and writings of Abraham, would he have wanted to purchase them? Wasn't it quite a large sum of money to pay? Were there other reasons he would have felt purchasing them warranted the purchase?

Thanks for any responses or help!

Even more specific to your question is this excerpt from a letter written on the 19th of July, 1835, by W.W. Phelps and sent to his wife. At the time, Phelps resided with Joseph and acted as his scribe:

"The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." (Phelps Letters)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The an even-handed application of the implications of David's assumptions about the Book of Abraham would necessarily undercut the historicity of the Book of Mormon too. Which, of course, all anti-Mormons understand quite clearly.

And, for that matter, applying these types of methods and assumptions consistently, we are left with no reason to accept the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus either.

There is an inevitable progress of increasing patterns of rejection of historicity once one starts down this path.

The reality is, of course, that literary theory and analysis tells us absolutely nothing about historicity. (e.g. Every one of the resurrection narratives might be completely garbled and textually corrupt and the resurrection might still have really occurred. And it is quite possible that we could have an original text of an eyewitness account of the resurrection, and it could be a hallucination an a lie.) Literary criticism can only tell us how a text develops. It can tell us nothing about the historical reality (or lack thereof) behind a text (be it fiction, delusion, fantasy, history). The fact that a text was written or edited in a certain way at a certain time tells us nothing about the events it purports to describe. History, paradoxically, is a subject that studies something that no longer exists--the past. Texts about the past are not the past.

I hadn't considered that potentially troubling angle. I am glad you mentioned it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

The 1981 introduction to the Book of Abraham features the following statement:

“The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

And now, the new 2013 version of the text contains the following introduction:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

I have to agree that these two statements are quite different and do mean a lot... when just looking at these statements alone (not taking into consideration the inclusion of the facsimiles in the current edition of the scriptures).

The first one explicitly states that the Book of Abraham text in the PoGP is a translation from Egyptian papyri that contained the writing of Abraham. Period. Anyone disagree?

The second one, when argued in the strictest sense, can completely separate the papyri from the BoA text in the PoGP. They are two separate sentences. And the second one simply refers to an event that occured before the translation. It's irrelevant. It speaks of zero connection between the two events.

The introduction might as well be:

“The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after eating a western omelet prepared by the hands of Emma.”

It means about the same thing (strictly when looking at the introductions ALONE). Of course we would then be talking about when the Western Omelet was first developed, if it was known in Kirtland at the time, and reading extensive papers from the MI about how ancient translators often partook of the "ovum of Gallus gallus domesticus" before translating texts.

But we do have the facsimiles, so we do have something to tie the BoA to the papyri. But... if you got rid of the facsimiles, you could leave the new intro untouched and technically it would still be accurate.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Alvino]

Just found the following video on youtube. Wanted to share.

[David Bokovoy]

Hopefully, Mr. Bokovoy will read your response and realize there was no disrespect intended.

As this discussion continues without my participation, I would prefer to be addressed as "David," or even "Dave" (although "Bokovoy" is fine too), however, if you insist upon formalities then it is Dr. Bokovoy.

Thank you.

[MormonMason]

Even more specific to your question is this excerpt from a letter written on the 19th of July, 1835, by W.W. Phelps and sent to his wife. At the time, Phelps resided with Joseph and acted as his scribe:

"The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." (Phelps Letters)...

Even your quote here can be subject to wider application and interpretation. Note the use of the word "contained" here. Not "He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," were the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham" but rather "He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham." Just a thought...

[MormonMason]

...

But we do have the facsimiles, so we do have something to tie the BoA to the papyri. But... if you got rid of the facsimiles, you could leave the new intro untouched and technically it would still be accurate.

We absolutely do have something to tie the BoA to the papyrus. This is as it should be. If the Abraham record were part of the same scroll with the Horos Book of Breathing we should absolutely expect to find ties to that text. I would expect nothing less than to find such connections considering that no one on his own would or could have known where on the conjoined scroll the Book of Breathing ended and the Book of Abraham began. A scroll the diameter of the Horos scroll could allow up to a little over 7 meters (~23 feet) of scroll. No Book of Breathing I have ever seen extended much over the length of 2 meters (6 feet; the longest I have seen, being the Ker^casher Papyrus, was just over 7 feet and the Horos text wouldn't be much more than 5 feet with eyewitness accounts claiming "a long scroll" and that it, when unrolled, "extented [sic] through two rooms of the Mansion House"). Edited March 8, 2013 by MormonMason