Book Of Abraham: Missing Scroll Length And Other Boa Apologetics

[BCSpace]

A good general source of BoA apologetics found here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham

 

The latest faithful scholarship on the matter of scroll length seems to be summarized here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Text/Size_of_missing_papyrus

 

Chris Smith and Andrew Cook published a response here:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf

 

Cook also published a response to Gee's counter response here:

http://66.147.244.190/~dialogu5/wp-content/uploads/premium/Dialogue_V45N03_120.pdf

 

Some of this seems to be premium content for the Dialogue publication yet it can be found freely by Google search.  So if I have erred in posting any links let me know and/or remove the links.

 

In the case of scroll length, is the FAIR response still considered good even against these latest critical counter responses?  I have plenty of math in my background to understand the derivations presented, but I would like to know what is the latest faithful apologetic response before I tackle this issue which, like most anti Mormon rabbit holes, will take some time.

 

Also, what is your opinion on the veracity/quality of the account given by Nibley:

 

We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

Hugh W. Nibley, "Phase One," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 no. 2 (Summer 1968), 101

 

I believe I once saw where Nibley got this and my initial thinking when doing apologetics was to counter any criticism of the source with mention of antiMormon use of second and third hand accounts: If they use such accounts for other criticisms (such as plural marriage), then they must also accept this as a valid source for the BoA issue.

 

As far as basic apologetics goes, my own opinion based on experience is that the best apologetic answer in most cases when the papyri are called into question is the Church itself which, as soon as the fragments were found, published that they were not part of the BoA text:

 

Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?

 

Indeed they were, as the January 1968 issue of the official Church magazine, the Improvement Era demonstrates.

 

Timeline
Cover of the January 1968 issue of the Improvement Era, the Church's official magazine of the time. Note the color photograph of the recovered Facsimile 1.

A review of the time-line of the papyri demonstrates that the Church quickly publicized the nature of the JSP in the official magazine of the time, The Improvement Era.

There were 11 fragments discovered and given to the church. The Church was very quick in releasing this information to the membership and the world.

November 27, 1967 Church receives papyri.
December 10–11, 1967 Deadline to submit material for the January 1968 Improvement Era.
December 26–31, 1967 January 1968 of Improvement Era issue mailed to subscribers.[1]
February 1968 another fragment was discovered in the Church historian's files, and publicized in the February 1968 Era.[2]

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22

Edited September 17, 2013 by BCSpace

[Mike Reed]

Catalyst theory seems useful to me... that is, until sources of the boa narrative are exposed. And they will be... in the nxt few years.

[MormonMason]

I'm actually looking forward to it.  

 

Oh, wait, it's not rooted in that idiotic list of claimed parallels and modern sources already circulating around, is it?

Edited September 17, 2013 by MormonMason

[cdowis]

Mnemonic theory ties together the Egyptian Grammar with the BOA translation.

[Calm]

I'm actually looking forward to it.  

 

Oh, wait, it's not rooted in that idiotic list of claimed parallels and modern sources already circulating around, is it?

Sounds interesting, CFR.

[CA Steve]

What evidence is there that the missing parts contain anything other than more funerary papyri?

[Freedom]

It is all very confusing and quite esoteric. Ultimately, I have not found any credible challenges to the actual content of the book. They all focus on what is left of the text and the interpretation of the facsimiles.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Catalyst theory seems useful to me... that is, until sources of the boa narrative are exposed. And they will be... in the nxt few years.

So I will finally be able to leave the church because there will be something new exposed? Do we have the gun yet?

[CA Steve]

It is all very confusing and quite esoteric. Ultimately, I have not found any credible challenges to the actual content of the book. They all focus on what is left of the text and the interpretation of the facsimiles.

You might find David Bokovoy's take on the contents interesting.

 

http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/

[BCSpace]

Catalyst theory seems useful to me...

 

 

I like to hypothesize that, since the Egyptians were notorious for changing/erasing embarrassing history, that perhaps the story surrounding say, facsimiles 1 and 3, was changed by them.  Abraham after all, did defeat their gods.  JS merely restored their original meaning.

 

that is, until sources of the boa narrative are exposed. And they will be... in the nxt few years.

 

The hopes of the anti Mopologists died out with David Whitmer who stuck with his Book of Mormon witness.

Edited September 17, 2013 by BCSpace

[Brian 2.0]

I like to hypothesize that, since the Egyptians were notorious for changing/erasing embarrassing history, that perhaps the story surrounding say, facsimiles 1 and 3, was changed by them. Abraham after all, did defeat their gods. JS merely restored their original meaning.

An interesting hypothesis, but it would be nice to see some earlier examples of Facs 1 and 3 with the original Abarahamic meaning on them to lend credence to the hypothesis. Edited September 17, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[BCSpace]

I like to hypothesize that, since the Egyptians were notorious for changing/erasing embarrassing history, that perhaps the story surrounding say, facsimiles 1 and 3, was changed by them. Abraham after all, did defeat their gods. JS merely restored their original meaning.

 

An interesting hypothesis, but it would be nice to see some earlier examples of Facs 1 and 3 with the original Abarahamic meaning on them to lend credence to the hypothesis.

 

Yep.  And it would be nice to see some original Bible MSS, and some gold alloy plates.  But the interesting thing about that is even if we had those it would still require just as much faith to believe the Christian, let alone LDS, message.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Thanks for the links! I find the scroll length very important because I don't find the catalyst theory convincing at all (given the anachronisms in the text which suggest that God didn't give him the text). While other evidences (including the reference to fascimile 1 being at the commencement and and also the the Egyptian characters in order from the small sensen part of the papyri in the BOA manuscripts), mentioned in the articles, point to missing papyri being an unlikely source, it seems to be the only option left.

[MormonMason]

Sounds interesting, CFR.

 

There was a list circulating around the back channels of the apostate world just last year or so, that claimed parallels from modern sources and a listing of books that were in Joseph Smith's environment from which he was supposed to have drawn ideas for the Book of Abraham.

 

I do not have a copy of that list anymore, but it was supposed to form the foundation of new critical research to be directed against the Church.  I never got through the first half before I realized how inane the comparisons were and did not bother going through the rest, followed by deletion of the document.

 

I do not recall who passed it on to me and I haven't faintest idea where to find it again except, possibly, on boards that cannot be linked to on this message board.  Now that I suspect that Mike Reed just might be working on something based on that list, I regret having deleted it.  I do recall that it was written by someone who used to post here.  I also recall that the early part of the list referred a lot to Antiquities of Freemasonry, by George Oliver.  But, that is about all I can tell anybody about it.  If I manage to come across it again, I'll post it.  But, I can partially answer the CFR because part of that list made its way here on this board.  You can see a part of the list, mentioning Antiquities of Freemasonry here.

Edited September 18, 2013 by MormonMason

[Brian 2.0]

Yep.  And it would be nice to see some original Bible MSS, and some gold alloy plates.  But the interesting thing about that is even if we had those it would still require just as much faith to believe the Christian, let alone LDS, message.

 

I agree that it requires faith, and really comes down to faith in the end.  But your comparisons aren't total analogous when talking about the Facs being distortions of Abraham originals and JS simply restored the original meanings.

 

In terms of original Bible MSS, a more apt parallel would be if someone today looked at a greek manuscript we do have and translated it into a compeletely different non-Christian religion with different characters and then it was claimed that the "chrisitan greek manuscript" was just a changed and altered version of the original non-christian one that we don't have.

 

Or in terms of the gold plates, if we did actually have the plates JS had, and we could translate them from an academic perspective and it did not contain Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc, but rather the record of some Pilgrims in the 1600s.  And then it was claimed that this Pilgrim writing on the plates was simply a changed and altered version of the real BOM characters and stories from earlier that we do not have.

 

Those would be anallogous to your hypothesis and each require a great deal of faith.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

 But, I can partially answer the CFR because part of that list made its way here on this board.  You can see a part of the list, mentioning Antiquities of Freemasonry here.

Thank you.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I agree that it requires faith, and really comes down to faith in the end. But your comparisons aren't total analogous when talking about the Facs being distortions of Abraham originals and JS simply restored the original meanings.

In terms of original Bible MSS, a more apt parallel would be if someone today looked at a greek manuscript we do have and translated it into a compeletely different non-Christian religion with different characters and then it was claimed that the "chrisitan greek manuscript" was just a changed and altered version of the original non-christian one that we don't have.

Or in terms of the gold plates, if we did actually have the plates JS had, and we could translate them from an academic perspective and it did not contain Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, etc, but rather the record of some Pilgrims in the 1600s. And then it was claimed that this Pilgrim writing on the plates was simply a changed and altered version of the real BOM characters and stories from earlier that we do not have.

Those would be anallogous to your hypothesis and each require a great deal of faith.

Great points!

[Mike Reed]

.. delete

Edited September 18, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

I'm actually looking forward to it.

Oh, wait, it's not rooted in that idiotic list of claimed parallels and modern sources already circulating around, is it?

You will have to forgive me if I don't consider your perception of what is idiotic as reliable. Actually, it is hard not to laugh when hearing the word out of your mouth. Ha! The irony! This word: idiotic. In case you were wondering.

Ps. Question: Have you made a single contribution to mormon studies? If you did, I mustve missed it.

Pss. You dont know the half of it.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Mike Reed

[MormonMason]

You will have to forgive me if I don't consider your perception of what is idiotic as reliable. Actually, it is hard not to laugh when hearing the word out of your mouth. Ha! The irony! This word: idiotic. In case you were wondering.

Ps. Question: Have you made a single contribution to mormon studies? If you did, I mustve missed it.

Based upon your reaction, I'd say that your research you mentioned is at least in part based on that horrid list that I saw.  That makes it all the more worth the wait.  Please gather and publish quickly.  It should likely be as good as your scissors observation regarding the Astana silks, after reading a mistaken museum page that has since been corrected because of information I furnished to the Museum through someone I know.  As I said:  Looking forward to it. 

 

As to my contributions, I prefer to remain in the background.  Many people have found many things after hearing things from others through whom I pass along information.  It might surprise you, actually, as to how much I have done for Mormon studies.  Unfortunately, the downside to remaining in the background and passing information through others is that you don't get any of the credit.  Oh well.  Better to live in some degree of safety than to put myself in the spotlight where I can endanger myself and my entire family.

 

But, whatever....

[DragonLancer]

Here is my take on the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/