My Paper On The Book Of Abraham Criticisms And Defenses - Please Review!

[wenglund]

Here is a link to one of three sets of Egyptian Alphabets. This one is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-alphabet-circa-july-circa-december-1835

 

If interested, please zoom in on the first page and see if you can find any Egyptian characters, let alone from Facsimile #1.

 

Check out the English explanations and see what, if anything they have to do with the Book of Abraham (hint: Abraham is nowhere mentioned on the first page.

 

Note also that on the first page there are two parts, and both parts relate to the "first degree."

 

Here is a link to one of several Abraham manuscripts, this one in the handwriting of Phelps and Parrish.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-abraham-excerpt-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26

 

Note what is written at the top of the page--i.e. "Sign of the fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part"

 

Coincidence?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker2013]

Sorry my paper didn't seem clear enough.  You might try the comments of LDS Egyptologist, Dr. Val Sederholm, starting with http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/2010/10/book-of-abraham-facsimile-2-church.html .  He has been commenting on the BofA for years on his blog.  However, I don't think that there are any summaries which just enumerate the correct or wrong "answers."  At least not in the form of an answer sheet.

Thanks for this, Robert, I'll give it a read. It's a shame there isn't a succinct list of "hits" out there, it would be nice to have something to compare to the lists and summaries made by critics.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I see no evidence of a "totally rework" here, and see no reason for deceptive palaver about it.  Here are the portions of text at issue:

 

1981 PGP Introduction

 

Following is a brief introduction to the present contents:

 

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. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History of the Church, 4:519–34.)

 

2013 PGP Introduction

 

Following is a brief introduction to the present contents:

 

2.  The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

 

The 2013 section is 9 words shorter than the 1981.  These are the primary changes:  A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.  >    An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. 

 

The first sentence is rewritten by insertion of “inspired” along with smoothing by reversal of the first and third clauses:  “writings of the patriarch Abraham” is placed after “inspired,” while “some Egyptian papyri” is moved to the end.  The unnecessary words “containing” and “patriarch” are both dropped, and that whole sentence is further simplified by being broken into two sentences  This actually improves the style considerably.  Probably a Church editor did this, and likely did not see any special implications in his/her work.  The Brethren need have had no hand in it.  I see no significant changes here.

We can disagree about whether the changes are significant, but would you agree that the 2013 PGP introduction for the first time in it's history and in the history of the BoA introduction backs away from these three claims that Joseph made: 1)he translated the papyri, 2)the papyri were the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri contained Abraham's writing?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Here is a link to one of three sets of Egyptian Alphabets. This one is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-alphabet-circa-july-circa-december-1835

 

If interested, please zoom in on the first page and see if you can find any Egyptian characters, let alone from Facsimile #1.

 

Check out the English explanations and see what, if anything they have to do with the Book of Abraham (hint: Abraham is nowhere mentioned on the first page.

 

Note also that on the first page there are two parts, and both parts relate to the "first degree."

 

Here is a link to one of several Abraham manuscripts, this one in the handwriting of Phelps and Parrish.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-abraham-excerpt-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26

 

Note what is written at the top of the page--i.e. "Sign of the fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part"

 

Coincidence?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that the first page of the EA-JS that you linked to has no reference to Abraham. See pages 42 and 43 of my paper and the footnotes on page 42 where I explain what the EAs connection to the BoA is (it isn't in the first pages of the EAs, it's later when the EAs translate the columns on the facsimile 1 fragment). I'm not sure why you're pointing that out, can you clarify what the relevance of that is?

Then you point again to the first page of the EA-JS and point out that in contains the phrases "Egyptian alphabet first degree" and "The second part first degree." You ask if there' a coincidence of there being "Sign of the fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" at the top of page 1 of the Williams Manuscript (you said Phelps and Parrish but you linked to Williams). Although you do not state outright what you are trying to get it, I assume you're making the argument that since page 1 of the EA-JS mentions "first degree" and "second part first degree" and the Williams Manuscript mentions something that sounds similar - "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" - and since nothing on page 1 of the EA-JS says anything about Abraham, then the hieroglyphics in the columns of the Williams Manuscript don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham. Is that the argument you're making? If so, I have a response, but I'd like to understand what you're arguing before I dive into that. Thanks.

Edited December 4, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Calm]

Backs away implies motivation.

If the claims are made elsewhere, is there any reason not to suppose that something was removed because it was seen as unnecessary and repetitive.

[Robert F. Smith]

We can disagree about whether the changes are significant, but would you agree that the 2013 PGP introduction for the first time in it's history and in the history of the BoA introduction backs away from these three claims that Joseph made: 1)he translated the papyri, 2)the papyri were the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri contained Abraham's writing?

There were only two introductions ever made for the PGP, the 1981 and 2013.  So speaking about "the first time in it's history" seems a bit anticlimactic and absurd.  Given the editing (as I pointed out) of the phrases, it seems to me that the equivalent phrases may not be overlooked.  Taken out of context (which perforce includes that editing, along with the content of the heading to every Book of Abraham), one might indeed see some hint of backing away, i.e., I can see how someone might interpret it "cold" in that fashion.  So, I am not at all mystified by misreadings of that kind.  The problem is that, if we had Supreme Court justices reading the Constitution in that loose, contextless manner, the Law would be in chaos.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not to derail this thread, but I'm a novice when it comes to the Book of Abraham and the arguments surrounding it.  I've tried reading the "long explanation" on the fairmormon website but it seems fragmented and hard to follow (at least for my brain).  Where can I find a fairly objective (I realize complete objectivity is impossible) outline of the issues in layman's terms?  Kind of like a "Book of Abraham for dummies?" 

"Book of Abraham for Dummies" is an excellent idea, and it hasn't been written yet.  Meantime, try my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[TruthSeeker2013]

There were only two introductions ever made for the PGP, the 1981 and 2013.  So speaking about "the first time in it's history" seems a bit anticlimactic and absurd.  Given the editing (as I pointed out) of the phrases, it seems to me that the equivalent phrases may not be overlooked.  Taken out of context (which perforce includes that editing, along with the content of the heading to every Book of Abraham), one might indeed see some hint of backing away, i.e., I can see how someone might interpret it "cold" in that fashion.  So, I am not at all mystified by misreadings of that kind.  The problem is that, if we had Supreme Court justices reading the Constitution in that loose, contextless manner, the Law would be in chaos.

We've already gone over this, Robert. Since the first Pearl of Great Price in 1851, it has always contained an introduction of the contents, including the Book of Abraham. From 1851 to 1981 it was called "Contents" and in 1981 the heading was changed to "Introductory Note" and then in 2013 it was changed to "Introduction." The links to these editions are in my paper, I can also provide them here if you wish.

[TruthSeeker2013]

"Book of Abraham for Dummies" is an excellent idea, and it hasn't been written yet.  Meantime, try my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

I really hope someone writes this!

[wenglund]

I agree that the first page of the EA-JS that you linked to has no reference to Abraham. See pages 42 and 43 of my paper and the footnotes on page 42 where I explain what the EAs connection to the BoA is (it isn't in the first pages of the EAs, it's later when the EAs translate the columns on the facsimile 1 fragment). I'm not sure why you're pointing that out, can you clarify what the relevance of that is?

Then you point again to the first page of the EA-JS and point out that in contains the phrases "Egyptian alphabet first degree" and "The second part first degree." You ask if there' a coincidence of there being "Sign of the fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" at the top of page 1 of the Williams Manuscript (you said Phelps and Parrish but you linked to Williams). Although you do not state outright what you are trying to get it, I assume you're making the argument that since page 1 of the EA-JS mentions "first degree" and "second part first degree" and the Williams Manuscript mentions something that sounds similar - "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" - and since nothing on page 1 of the EA-JS says anything about Abraham, then the hieroglyphics in the columns of the Williams Manuscript don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham. Is that the argument you're making? If so, I have a response, but I'd like to understand what you're arguing before I dive into that. Thanks.

 

No, that is not what I am arguing. There is an obvious connections between the Egyptian characters in the left-hand column of the Kirkland Abraham Manuscripts and the associated BoA text. In fact, the connection is even numbered in the Phelps section of the Phelps/Parrish manuscript. However, the connection isn't what you and other critics assume it is. The connection you presume doesn't explain the first page of the EA's, or much of the GAEL, or the "parts" and "degrees" represented in the EA's and GAEL and Kirkland Abraham Manuscripts. The notation of "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" in the Kirtland Abraham Manuscripts is not coincidental. It establishes a relationship between the various KEP documents for which you need to answer.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

We've already gone over this, Robert. Since the first Pearl of Great Price in 1851, it has always contained an introduction of the contents, including the Book of Abraham. From 1851 to 1981 it was called "Contents" and in 1981 the heading was changed to "Introductory Note" and then in 2013 it was changed to "Introduction." The links to these editions are in my paper, I can also provide them here if you wish.

We've been over this before, indeed, and it seems to me that a table of "contents" does not constitute an "introduction."  I hope I'm not being too formal for you.  I just like to call things by their real names.

[Robert F. Smith]

I really hope someone writes this!

Give it a shot, TruthSeeker.  They pay for a good one.  You'll need to keep it simple, somewhat humorous, and fair to all sides (there are more than two sides).  They also need one for the Book of Mormon.

They already have Judaism for Dummies, Mormonism for Dummies, etc., and both are quite good.

[TruthSeeker2013]

No, that is not what I am arguing. There is an obvious connections between the Egyptian characters in the left-hand column of the Kirkland Abraham Manuscripts and the associated BoA text. In fact, the connection is even numbered in the Phelps section of the Phelps/Parrish manuscript. However, the connection isn't what you and other critics assume it is. The connection you presume doesn't explain the first page of the EA's, or much of the GAEL, or the "parts" and "degrees" represented in the EA's and GAEL and Kirkland Abraham Manuscripts. The notation of "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" in the Kirtland Abraham Manuscripts is not coincidental. It establishes a relationship between the various KEP documents for which you need to answer.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First, this is the Phelps/Parrish BoA manuscript - http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/william-w-phelps-and-warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-summer-fall-1835-abraham-11-218 I think you mean the Williams BoA manuscript, right? It's here - http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/frederick-g-williams-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26

I guess I'm a little confused at what you're saying. Are you saying that because the Williams manuscript starts with "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" and the first few pages of the Egyptian Alphabets talk about "degrees" and "parts" that there must be a connection between the Williams manuscript and the first few pages of the Egyptian Alphabets? And then are you saying that you don't know what that connection is but that critics need to explain it?

Edited December 5, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[TruthSeeker2013]

We've been over this before, indeed, and it seems to me that a table of "contents" does not constitute an "introduction."  I hope I'm not being too formal for you.  I just like to call things by their real names.

Got it, thanks.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Give it a shot, TruthSeeker.  They pay for a good one.  You'll need to keep it simple, somewhat humorous, and fair to all sides (there are more than two sides).  They also need one for the Book of Mormon.

They already have Judaism for Dummies, Mormonism for Dummies, etc., and both are quite good.

Me do it? You are clearly more qualified so I'll defer to you, haha. In all truth, I'm sure neither of us probably have to time to take on such a project. But I'll be the first to purchase it if someone ever writes it! And that's mind boggling that there isn't even one on the Book of Mormon!

Edited December 5, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[wenglund]

First, this is the Phelps/Parrish BoA manuscript - http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/william-w-phelps-and-warren-parrish-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-summer-fall-1835-abraham-11-218 I think you mean the Williams BoA manuscript, right? It's here - http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/frederick-g-williams-copy-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-october-1835-abraham-14-26

 

 

Yes, the Williams manuscript contains the reference to the fifth degree second part. If I recall correctly, so does the Parrish manuscript, though not the Phelps/Parrish manuscript.

 

I guess I'm a little confused at what you're saying. Are you saying that because the Williams manuscript starts with "fifth degree of the first <Seccond> part" and the first few pages of the Egyptian Alphabets talk about "degrees" and "parts" that there must be a connection between the Williams manuscript and the first few pages of the Egyptian Alphabets?

 

What I am saying is that mention of "degrees" and "parts" in each of the KEP documents (EAs, GAEL, and Abraham mss) is but one of several things that tie the KEP progressively together.

 

And then are you saying that you don't know what that connection is but that critics need to explain it?

 

I can explain it, but so must the critics. What, if anything, is your explanation?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker2013]

Yes, the Williams manuscript contains the reference to the fifth degree second part. If I recall correctly, so does the Parrish manuscript, though not the Phelps/Parrish manuscript.

 

 

 

 

What I am saying is that mention of "degrees" and "parts" in each of the KEP documents (EAs, GAEL, and Abraham mss) is but one of several things that tie the KEP progressively together.

 

 

 

 

I can explain it, but so must the critics. What, if anything, is your explanation?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not seeing how tying it all together is relevant to anything. What meaning do you draw from it? As far as critics explaining it, I think the simple explanation would be Joseph made it all up. I personally believe that he truly thought he was doing a translation but that it was merely his imagination and he didn't realize it.

[wenglund]

I'm not seeing how tying it all together is relevant to anything. What meaning do you draw from it? As far as critics explaining it, I think the simple explanation would be Joseph made it all up. I personally believe that he truly thought he was doing a translation but that it was merely his imagination and he didn't realize it.

 

This explains generally your dubious belief about how it all was created. It doesn't explain specifically why, among many other things, two of the Abraham manuscripts talk of "parts" and "degrees" just like the EA's and the GAEL before it. Even if it all was made up, there is still a rhyme and reason for why it was made up the way it was allegedly made up, and this needs to be explained by the various theories. You and other critics evidently can't explain the data, and as such you don't understand the purpose behind the KEP, and have consequently jumped to a faulty conclusion because you are only considering a small segment of the data. You and the other critics need to be able to connect all the pieces of the KEP puzzle if you wish to get an accurate picture of what the KEP were about, if not also who was the primary architect behind the KEP.

 

If you are interested in putting the pieces together, may I suggest you first focus on the GAEL, particularly the "grammar" sections of the GAEL, where the "degrees" are somewhat explained. Then consider the Counting Document, and figure out how and why it fits in.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 6, 2013 by wenglund

[TruthSeeker2013]

This explains generally your dubious belief about how it all was created. It doesn't explain specifically why, among many other things, two of the Abraham manuscripts talk of "parts" and "degrees" just like the EA's and the GAEL before it. Even if it all was made up, there is still a rhyme and reason for why it was made up the way it was allegedly made up, and this needs to be explained by the various theories. You and other critics evidently can't explain the data, and as such you don't understand the purpose behind the KEP, and have consequently jumped to a faulty conclusion because you are only considering a small segment of the data. You and the other critics need to be able to connect all the pieces of the KEP puzzle if you wish to get an accurate picture of what the KEP were about, if not also who was the primary architect behind the KEP.

 

If you are interested in putting the pieces together, may I suggest you first focus on the GAEL, particularly the "grammar" sections of the GAEL, where the "degrees" are somewhat explained. Then consider the Counting Document, and figure out how and why it fits in.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry for the delay in my reply. Wade, is there a reason you won't explain what the connection is that you see? And by the "counting document" do you mean this? - http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-counting-circa-july-circa-december-1835 Please walk me through the connection you see.

Thanks.

Edited December 11, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[DragonLancer]

I think that your document addresses the issues fairly well, and is a good summary of the problems involved.  However, being fundamentally a TBM in my ideologies, I disagree with your conclusions and interpretations, NOT your evidences.

 

I actually agree that the Sensen Papyrus is the Egyptian Original for the Book of Abraham, and I think the Missing Papyrus theory and the Scribes Did It theory are without foundation.  I disagree with all other "faithful" theories on the KEP and the Book of Abraham translation process in fundamental ways.

 

I have documented my theory/research on my blog, although it is not all there yet.  It will take a while to post all the content I have:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

 

I may still write a book on this, but I am posting the content of my manuscript slowly on this blog.

 

And before anybody has a knee-jerk reaction about my research, I recommend that you read my first post on the subject:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2013/12/first-post-some-background.html

 

Thanks.

 

Ed Goble

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that your document addresses the issues fairly well, and is a good summary of the problems involved.  However, being fundamentally a TBM in my ideologies, I disagree with your conclusions and interpretations, NOT your evidences.

 

I actually agree that the Sensen Papyrus is the Egyptian Original for the Book of Abraham, and I think the Missing Papyrus theory and the Scribes Did It theory are without foundation.  I disagree with all other "faithful" theories on the KEP and the Book of Abraham translation process in fundamental ways.

 

I have documented my theory/research on my blog, although it is not all there yet.  It will take a while to post all the content I have:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

 

I may still write a book on this, but I am posting the content of my manuscript slowly on this blog.

 

And before anybody has a knee-jerk reaction about my research, I recommend that you read my first post on the subject:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2013/12/first-post-some-background.html

 

Thanks.

 

Ed Goble

Nice to see you back, Ed.  What's with the new nom de plume?  Or is that a nom de guerre?

[DragonLancer]

LOL.  Nope Robert.  I am not here for la Guerra.  I'm here for Peace.

[nmcknz]

In seminary I learned facsimile no1 is a father son image. It might be Anubis embalming or "resurrecting" his own father, Osiris. Instead of a sacrifice. Is this a prototype of Abraham?

[Robert F. Smith]

In seminary I learned facsimile no1 is a father son image. It might be Anubis embalming or "resurrecting" his own father, Osiris. Instead of a sacrifice. Is this a prototype of Abraham?

That is certainly possible.  In some accounts, jackal-headed Anubis is the son of Nephthys and Osiris (Budge, The Mummy, 279).  An Anubis priest typically conducted three rituals upon the deceased person (always an "Osiris-so-and-so"):  Embalming, Opening the Mouth, and Weighing the Heart Judgment.  It was Isis, however, who Resurrected Osiris, depicted as a bird with wings outstretched over Osiris.  One can see how the iconography of Fac. 1 could be used by a Jewish scribe in Ptolemaic Egypt to depict a somewhat different but related story-line (Abraham 1:15-17).

[nmcknz]

sometimes I think Nephi's family traveled on a spaceship. It seems a race of beings called Hebrews came from the stars. Venus use to be called 'Merica'. Let me know what you think of this summary of world history below.