New Gospel Topic Entry Re Boa

[Rob Osborn]

Produce evidence that the missing portions might contain something other than ordinary funerary documents and you might have a point.

Produce evidence that the Book of Abraham came for any other scroll other than the Hor scroll and you might not be conjecturing.

Is this 1841 quote from William Appleby 1841 Journal conjecture?

Now you are getting the point- until we come up with the missing papyri we are just shooting in the dark. The papyri that Joseph Smith translated the BoA was beautifully scribed with both black and red ink. All the fragments we have do not match that description. Historical accounts paint a picture of these scrolls being very long also.

[Rob Osborn]

Let me use one more parallel... go with me on this...

 

There's a trial going on for murder.  The victim had their throat slit.  The issue at hand, the only issue being discussed, is what was the murder weapon.  And in this sleepy town there are only TWO items that could even cut a throat (crazy town, I know).  Those two items are a KNIFE and a SWORD.  And both the items are missing!  Oh well, gonna be hard to solve this mystery.  But wait... someone found the KNIFE!  And on the knife we find the dried blood of the victim and some of the victim's hair fibers.  The town is debating and discussing if the knife was the murder weapon, and most conclude the knife was the weapon that slit the victim's throat due to the evidence, but some still believe the knife wasn't the weapon for various reasons.  But then the wise sage comes down from the mountain and says, "Stop this discussion!  It's impossible to even debate whether or not the knife was the weapon... because we haven't found the sword!"  The town looks to the wise sage and says... what are you talking about?

 

Joseph Smith said he translated papyri to give us the Book of Abraham

He was either translating the papyri we have found, even in part

Or he was translating the papyri that we haven't found.

But just because we don't have that missing papyri, doesn't mean we can't look at the found papyri and the evidence surrounding it to discuss whether Joseph Smith used this found papyri in his translation.

Until you find the missing papyri its not going to make sense. Its all conjecture. How do you know Joseph didnt go through it all and say- well, these ones are just funery texts and dont mean anything until he came across one wholly different?

[CA Steve]

Now you are getting the point- until we come up with the missing papyri we are just shooting in the dark. The papyri that Joseph Smith translated the BoA was beautifully scribed with both black and red ink. All the fragments we have do not match that description. Historical accounts paint a picture of these scrolls being very long also.

You need to reread the Appleby quote more carefully. The papyrus that Appleby described as beautifully written with red and black ink was the scroll (Book of the Dead of Ta-Sherit-Min) purported to have the writings of Joseph, not Abraham's which is the Hor scroll. The Ta-Sherit-Min scroll has red rubrics while the Hor scroll has only black characters.

[mfbukowski]

There's somebody wrong on the internet......

[USU78]

There's somebody wrong on the internet......

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not trying t make a claim.  Just relating how I was taught.  But I googled it to see if I was wrong again......maybe....but I guess it is how you read things.  

 

"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…. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth" Joseph Smith, July 5, 1835,(HC 2:236).

 

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients". History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238:

 

''. . . [Joseph Smith's] most notable achievement was the development at Kirtland of a grammar for the Egyptian hieroglyphic form of writing. This was used by him, as well as divine aid, in translating ancient writings of the patriarch Abraham. The Restored Church 1956 ed., p. 133.

 

I guess it could be taken either way.  Makes me feel a little better.  What are your thoughts?

What does translation mean here? Do we even know? Some of us assume it is a traditional sense of the word from our current perspective. Also as to the EAG, there has been considerable debate on this and significant evidence that translation here cannot mean "traditional". And that the EAG was not some tool to reverse translate Egyptian as some seem to think and the JS was not even the person that started the project.

[Buckeye]

What does translation mean here? Do we even know? Some of us assume it is a traditional sense of the word from our current perspective. Also as to the EAG, there has been considerable debate on this and significant evidence that translation here cannot mean "traditional". And that the EAG was not some tool to reverse translate Egyptian as some seem to think and the JS was not even the person that started the project.

 

If only we gave members as much leeway with the wording of temple recommend questions. 

 

Bishop: So you earned 100K a year for a decade and declared yourself a full tithe payer even though you never paid a dime?

Member:  What does "pay" even mean?  Members have been debating that forever.

 

Bishop:  And Sister Y claims you had an affair and she's pregnant?

Member:  What does "chastity" even mean?  Members have been debating that forever.

 

Bishop:  It sounds to me like you haven't been honest in our interviews over the years.

Member:  What is "honesty" after all?  Everyone has their own definition.  How you define it doesn't really matter.  All that matters is that you say you're honest. 

[Rob Osborn]

You need to reread the Appleby quote more carefully. The papyrus that Appleby described as beautifully written with red and black ink was the scroll (Book of the Dead of Ta-Sherit-Min) purported to have the writings of Joseph, not Abraham's which is the Hor scroll. The Ta-Sherit-Min scroll has red rubrics while the Hor scroll has only black characters.

Hum, I found this on the LDS.org site-

"One explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. In other words, we don’t have all the papyri Joseph Smith had—and what we do have is obviously not the text of the book of Abraham. The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith’s day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri. In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile two [Facsimile 2] in the book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted in it." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[CA Steve]

Hum, I found this on the LDS.org site-

"One explanation is that it may have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. In other words, we don’t have all the papyri Joseph Smith had—and what we do have is obviously not the text of the book of Abraham. The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith’s day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri. In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile two [Facsimile 2] in the book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted in it." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Interesting. I wonder why Oliver Cowdrey would say the exact same thing in his letter to William Frye in a different context than what was being translated? Is it possible the church quote is taken out of context and misattributed?

 

 

Kirtland, Ohio, December 22, 1835

 

Dear Brother in the Lord [William Frye]:

 

. . . Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, and may I say a few words. This record is beautifully written in papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation. The characters are such as you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics and etc., with many characters or letters exactly like the present, though perhaps not quite so square form of the Hebrew without points.

These records were obtained from one of the catacombs in Egypt, near the place where once stood the renowned city of Thebes, by the celebrated French traveller Antonio Sebolo [Lebolo], in the year 1831. He procured license from Mohemet Ali, then Viceroy of Egypt under the protection of Chevralier [Chevalier] Drovetti, the French Consul, in the year 1828; employed 433 men four months and two days, (if I understood correctly, Egyptian or Turkish soldiers), at from four to six cents per diem, each man; entered the catacomb June 7, 1831, and obtained eleven mummies. There were several hundred mummies in the same catacomb. About one hundred embalmed after the first order and deposited and placed in niches and two or three hundred after the second and third order, and laid upon the floor or bottom of the grand cavity, the two last orders of embalmed were so decayed that they could not be removed and only eleven out of the first, found in the niches.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Letters-cowdery.html

Maybe you could chase down where your quote actually came from.

Edited July 11, 2014 by CA Steve

[UtahTexan]

What does translation mean here? Do we even know? Some of us assume it is a traditional sense of the word from our current perspective. Also as to the EAG, there has been considerable debate on this and significant evidence that translation here cannot mean "traditional". And that the EAG was not some tool to reverse translate Egyptian as some seem to think and the JS was not even the person that started the project.

 

I suppose.  I took translation to mean...well...translation.  The way it was described in these quotes made it look like he translated like I would: looked at one, thought of the word in the other language, and wrote it down.  

 

Again....not saying anything definitive.  Just telling you what I felt.....

[Rob Osborn]

Interesting. I wonder why Oliver Cowdrey would say the exact same thing in his letter to William Frye in a different context than what was being translated? Is it possible the church quote is taken out of context and misattributed?

 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Letters-cowdery.html

Maybe you could chase down where your quote actually came from.

It looks like the two sources- yours and mine are saying the same thing. Not sure what your point is? It appears from your source that the description is in accordance with my source both describing the same now missing papyri that was used to translate the BoA

[CA Steve]

It looks like the two sources- yours and mine are saying the same thing. Not sure what your point is? It appears from your source that the description is in accordance with my source both describing the same now missing papyri that was used to translate the BoA

My source is original. Yours is not. Find out where yours came from before you rely on it.

I suspect you will find your quote and my quote are one and the same, which when taken in context, does not support your argument that the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll was used in the Book of Abraham translation.

Edited July 11, 2014 by CA Steve

[Buckeye]

I suppose.  I took translation to mean...well...translation.  The way it was described in these quotes made it look like he translated like I would: looked at one, thought of the word in the other language, and wrote it down.  

 

Again....not saying anything definitive.  Just telling you what I felt.....

 

CountryBoy, your feeling comports with the historical record.  Below are additional statements quoted in the Encyclopdia of Mormonism regarding what Joseph meant by "translate."  As you can see, he clearly meant that he was translating what was on the papyrii from egyptian to english (no catalyst) and that, contrary to what is said in the new LDS.org essay, he believed he could translate ancient egyptian. 

 

In early July 1835, Chandler visited Kirtland, where he met Joseph Smith and inquired "if he had a power by which he could translate the ancient Egyptian. Mr. Smith replied that he had" (P. Pratt, Millennial Star, July 1842). Chandler presented some hieroglyphics, which others supposedly had interpreted. Joseph Smith left and returned with a written English translation corresponding to the interpretation Chandler had already received. The Prophet displayed interest in the papyri, but Chandler would not break up his exhibit. Shortly thereafter, Church members purchased for $2,400 "four human figures…with two or more rolls of papyrus" (HC 2:235). Oliver Cowdery remembered that it was "two rolls…[with] two or three other small pieces," the text written "with black, and a small part, red ink or paint" (Messenger and Advocate, Dec. 31, 1835). Within three days, Joseph Smith translated some "hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another, writings of Joseph of Egypt." Joseph Smith spent from July 17 to 31 "continually…translating an alphabet…and arranging a grammar" of Egyptian (HC 2:236-38). On October 1, while he worked on the alphabet, the "principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham…unfolded" (HC 2:286). On November 17 he "exhibited the alphabet" (HC 2:316). He recorded "translating the Egyptian records" on October 7, November 19-20 (20th: "made rapid progress"), and November 24-26 (HC 2:289, 318, 320). LDS Church Archives contain Book of Abraham texts (Abr. 1:1-2:18) from this period.

 

(http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Papyri,_Joseph_Smith) (bold mine)

Edited July 11, 2014 by Buckeye

[Rob Osborn]

My source is original. Yours is not. Find out where yours came from before you rely on it.

I suspect you will find your quote and my quote are one and the same, which when taken in context, does not support your argument that the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll was used in the Book of Abraham translation.

Okay, lets just use your quote- what part of it leads me to believe that we do in fact have that very same papyri in our possession for viewing pleasure that was used in the translation of the BoA main text? It appears that from description alone that the mentioned text is describing a papyrus that we no longer have.

[CA Steve]

Okay, lets just use your quote- what part of it leads me to believe that we do in fact have that very same papyri in our possession for viewing pleasure that was used in the translation of the BoA main text? It appears that from description alone that the mentioned text is describing a papyrus that we no longer have.

Have you ever looked at the extant pieces of the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll? It matches that description, along with other descriptions, perfectly. In fact nearly (if not all) every contemporary descriptions of the contents of the scrolls matches what is on the extant pieces.

[Rob Osborn]

Have you ever looked at the extant pieces of the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll? It matches that description, along with other descriptions, perfectly. In fact nearly (if not all) every contemporary descriptions of the contents of the scrolls matches what is on the extant pieces.

Could you provide a link?

[cinepro]

You gotta love this.  Or maybe not...

 

[omni]

Funny how God can help me find my keys (something that does not pertain to my salvation), but he can't tell the Brethren if the BoA was a literal translation of the papyri, why black's couldn't have the priesthood, why the need for polygamy, why women can't have the priesthood, etc.

[CA Steve]

Could you provide a link?

These are the extant pieces of the Book of the Dead of Ta-Sherit_Min scroll.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=3

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=7

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=9

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=11

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=13

 

These are the extant pieces of the Breathing permit of Hor

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=1

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=19

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri#!/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri&p=17

[omni]

CountryBoy, your feeling comports with the historical record. Below are additional statements quoted in the Encyclopdia of Mormonism regarding what Joseph meant by "translate." As you can see, he clearly meant that he was translating what was on the papyrii from egyptian to english (no catalyst) and that, contrary to what is said in the new LDS.org essay, he believed he could translate ancient egyptian.

In early July 1835, Chandler visited Kirtland, where he met Joseph Smith and inquired "if he had a power by which he could translate the ancient Egyptian. Mr. Smith replied that he had" (P. Pratt, Millennial Star, July 1842). Chandler presented some hieroglyphics, which others supposedly had interpreted. Joseph Smith left and returned with a written English translation corresponding to the interpretation Chandler had already received. The Prophet displayed interest in the papyri, but Chandler would not break up his exhibit. Shortly thereafter, Church members purchased for $2,400 "four human figures…with two or more rolls of papyrus" (HC 2:235). Oliver Cowdery remembered that it was "two rolls…[with] two or three other small pieces," the text written "with black, and a small part, red ink or paint" (Messenger and Advocate, Dec. 31, 1835). Within three days, Joseph Smith translated some "hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another, writings of Joseph of Egypt." Joseph Smith spent from July 17 to 31 "continually…translating an alphabet…and arranging a grammar" of Egyptian (HC 2:236-38). On October 1, while he worked on the alphabet, the "principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham…unfolded" (HC 2:286). On November 17 he "exhibited the alphabet" (HC 2:316). He recorded "translating the Egyptian records" on October 7, November 19-20 (20th: "made rapid progress"), and November 24-26 (HC 2:289, 318, 320). LDS Church Archives contain Book of Abraham texts (Abr. 1:1-2:18) from this period.

(http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Papyri,_Joseph_Smith) (bold mine)

If you believe in a catalyst theory, it make one wonder why God commanded Joseph to purchase the unrelated papyri for what was then a significant sum for the financially struggling church.

With the the D&C God was able to give Joseph direct revelation without the aid of a catalyst.

[cinepro]

If you believe in a catalyst theory, it make one wonder why God commanded Joseph to purchase the unrelated papyri for what was then a significant sum for the financially struggling church.

With the the D&C God was able to give Joseph direct revelation without the aid of a catalyst.

 

I think the purchase price was a test to see if the Church had enough faith to make it worthy of receiving the Book of Abraham.

[Bart Burk]

I think they would have been better off leaving this topic alone rather than trying to address it so poorly. There is nothing in that article which will bring people closer to Christ or justify the Book of Abraham as scripture. Excuses, excuses and more excuses ...

Edited July 12, 2014 by Bart Burk

[Calm]

There is nothing in the Bible itself save the experience of reading it and feeling the Spirit.

[Hamba Tuhan]

There is nothing in the Bible itself save the experience of reading it and feeling the Spirit.

 

And then acting upon both what it teaches and what the Spirit prompts us to do.

[Brian 2.0]

Have you ever looked at the extant pieces of the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll? It matches that description, along with other descriptions, perfectly. In fact nearly (if not all) every contemporary descriptions of the contents of the scrolls matches what is on the extant pieces.

Exactly. I'm always baffled by the "black and red ink" scroll argument as if it's something we don't have. We DO have a scroll very well preserved with black and red ink with drawings. And it ain't the BoA or the Book of Joseph.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Brian 2.0