Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[DBMormon]

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

 

 

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

 

Well, according to FairMormon, John Gee has published that the total scroll length was 41 ft. Of course if you read the paper that this is published in, Dr Gee does not back this up with anything other than his word (i.e. no measurements are giving that can be checked against the documents). Then we have Nibley's recollection given that "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." Despite that this is a very late 3rd hand account based on the eyewitness memory of a boy, since it supports the missing papyrus theory, it is okay to rely on this. Also I think Will Schryver promised a paper supporting a long length Hor scroll that was going to be published several years ago. Does anyone know the status of this?

Edited November 14, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bobbieaware]

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

 

 

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

So do you believe the Book of Abraham is the,word of God?

[Mystery Meat]

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

 

 

Faith. Someone here, I can't remember who, made the best point possible when he/she said that of all the things we are asked to take on faith (ie, Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus Christ was born of Mary, a Virgin, he experienced all our heartache, pain and suffered for our sins, that he rose from the dead three days later, etc) why would it be so hard to believe that the BOA is the word of God, no matter how it came to be?

[DBMormon]

So do you believe the Book of Abraham is the,word of God?

I have testimony of the Book of Mormon as containing truth but I no longer have certitude of historical truthfullness.  Instead I have faith in spite of my doubt.  I guess you could say I feel the same way about the BOA but since I frame my faith this way, I am not inclined to defend what I feel are faulty assumptions or defend really poor plausibility

[DBMormon]

Faith. Someone here, I can't remember who, made the best point possible when he/she said that of all the things we are asked to take on faith (ie, Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus Christ was born of Mary, a Virgin, he experienced all our heartache, pain and suffered for our sins, that he rose from the dead three days later, etc) why would it be so hard to believe that the BOA is the word of God, no matter how it came to be?

Do you have faith in a flying spaghetti monster?  could you?  or would there at least need to be valid room for faith in something to have faith in it.  I choose not to have faith in something as historically true if to my mind it is obviously not historically true.  Not saying I am there with the BOA but just combating your perception that we can choose to have faith in anything.

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[Boanerges]

Frankly I don't reconcile it at all. I don't believe it to be the word of God and I do not reference it ever in any lesson or any talk. I dismiss any part of anything I read where it is used as evidence.

 

However, please do not construe this to mean I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, because I do believe he was a prophet. And, I have never been asked in any interview, temple or otherwise, if I believe the Book of Abraham to be the word of God or anything else about it. Lastly, the Book of Abraham is also not mentioned as a standard in the Articles of Faith. I say this in recognition of the fact that one can be a good and faithful member of the church without believing in the Book of Abraham - and a few other things.

[Duncan]

 

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

 

 

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

 

 

 

you shouldn't dethrone a theory without re-enthroning another one. So, based on everything that Joseph Smith and others said ( I am assuming you've read everything) where do you think the BOA came from? 

[DBMormon]

Frankly I don't reconcile it at all. I don't believe it to be the word of God and I do not reference it ever in any lesson or any talk. I dismiss any part of anything I read where it is used as evidence.

 

However, please do not construe this to mean I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, because I do believe he was a prophet. And, I have never been asked in any interview, temple or otherwise, if I believe the Book of Abraham to be the word of God or anything else about it. Lastly, the Book of Abraham is also not mentioned as a standard in the Articles of Faith. I say this in recognition of the fact that one can be a good and faithful member of the church without believing in the Book of Abraham - and a few other things.

I like your courage to say such, but I also find saying Joseph made up the BOA or got it from a non-godly source raises more questions than it answers if one wants to hold a positive view of Joseph as prophet.  I would love to hear how you reconcile that paradox

[DBMormon]

you shouldn't dethrone a theory without re-enthroning another one. So, based on everything that Joseph Smith and others said ( I am assuming you've read everything) where do you think the BOA came from? 

I Don't know.  I didn't know one had to have an answer to a problem to pose a question or to discuss the problem.

[Bobbieaware]

I have testimony of the Book of Mormon as containing truth but I no longer have certitude of historical truthfullness.  Instead I have faith in spite of my doubt.  I guess you could say I feel the same way about the BOA but since I frame my faith this way, I am not inclined to defend what I feel are faulty assumptions or defend really poor plausibility

As I understand, you are someone who helps those who are wavering in their LDS faith. So when you are engaged in the work of helping those who's testimonies are wavering, have you ever shared with them your belief that the LDS scriptures are somehow both true and apocryphal at the same time? And if you have, how well received is this idea?

[DBMormon]

As I understand, you are someone who helps those who are wavering in their LDS faith. So when you are engaged in the work of helping those who's testimonies are wavering, have you ever shared with them your belief that the LDS scriptures are somehow both true and apocryphal at the same time? And if you have, how well received is this idea?

Where did I say I hold them to be non historical?  I have never said that.  I simply said I have no certitude of their historicity but I also said I have faith that they are historical.

[Bobbieaware]

Where did I say I hold them to be non historical?  I have never said that.  I simply said I have no certitude of their historicity but I also said I have faith that they are historical.

Thanks for the clarification.

[drums12]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62230-my-paper-on-the-book-of-abraham-criticisms-and-defenses-please-review/page-2#entry1209319029

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/41813-robert-ritner-and-facsimile-3/page-3#entry1208612853

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62230-my-paper-on-the-book-of-abraham-criticisms-and-defenses-please-review/?p=1209319029

 

I think that Robert F. Smith knows more about Egyptian iconography than anyone on this board.  I don't know how the Book of Abraham came about, although I believe Kevin Barney's Semitic Adaptation theory is the most plausible of apologetic arguments.  Also, it seems to me that critics primarily focus on the production of the BofA, not its content. 

[Brian 2.0]

 

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

 

 

The Catalyst Theory fails. Some apologists argue that the source of the Book of Abraham is not the papyrus at all but that the source is simply revelation from God and the papyrus merely acted as a catalyst for Smith to receive the revelation. The theory fails for the following reasons:

a. It contradicts Smith’s own statements that the papyri were written by in the “handwriting of Abraham,” “by his own hand” and “sign[ed by] the patriarch Abraham.”

b. It contradicts all of the evidence stated above that Smith’s source of the Book of Abraham was the Breathing Permit of Hor.

c. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that Smith’s translations and restorations of the facsimiles were revelation from God, and thus we must conclude that God was directing Smith to incorrectly translate and restore the facsimiles.

d. There are numerous anachronisms throughout the Book of Abraham, including “Chaldea,” “Pharoah,” “Egyptus,” etc. If true, the Catalyst theory would mean that God directed Smith to include anachronisms in the Book of Abraham and to falsely attribute them to Abraham.

 

I did not write the above but found it to the point on the issues so please know my word choice may have been different.

So with that  how do you guys make this work?  What do you do to reconcile the BOA as authentic translated/transmitted scripture?

 

 

Missing Papyri Theory:

a.  It is possible the order on the scroll was -- facsimile, Breathing Permit, then BoA.  That the breathing permit was put in the middle of the BoA by someone.

b.  It is possible the characters on the manuscripts were post hoc attempts by the scribes to figure out where the translations came from (i.e. the characters were written there after the english translation)

c.  There is debate on the length of the scroll.  It's possible it was longer.  Either way we don't have everything so i could have been on whatever is missing.

d.  JS explanations and restorations could have been restorations of the original that Abraham had and the ones we have in the papyri are Egyptian modifications to the Abrahamic original.

 

Catalyst Theory:

a. The words JS was "translating" were originally written by the hand of Abraham.  JS may have incorrectly assumed that the papryi were that original.

b. see "b" above to show the Breathing Permit may not have been source

c. see "d" above to show that the God was revealing to him the explanations and translations of the original Abrahamic facsimiles

d. "Translation" isn't always a word-for-word process, nor a perfect process.  Joseph Smith may have introduced anachronistic words as he filtered the revelation through him.

 

These are just a few of the many answers you could find on these issues.  Lots out there that talk about all these points.

 

Now, full disclosure, I don't believe the BoA.  I don't find any of these convincing.  But are they "possible"?  yes.  I just don't find them probable and see other more highly probable scenarios that account for the evidence.

 

To say the Missing Papyri and Catalyst Theory "fail" (i know they weren't your words) is a little off point.  It's more that they are weak and unconvincing... to me anyway.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[stemelbow]

Missing Papyri Theory:

a.  It is possible the order on the scroll was -- facsimile, Breathing Permit, then BoA.  That the breathing permit was put in the middle of the BoA by someone.

b.  It is possible the characters on the manuscripts were post hoc attempts by the scribes to figure out where the translations came from (i.e. the characters were written there after the english translation)

c.  There is debate on the length of the scroll.  It's possible it was longer.  Either way we don't have everything so i could have been on whatever is missing.

d.  JS explanations and restorations could have been restorations of the original that Abraham had and the ones we have in the papyri are Egyptian modifications to the Abrahamic original.

 

Catalyst Theory:

a. The words JS was "translating" were originally written by the hand of Abraham.  JS may have incorrectly assumed that the papryi were that original.

b. see "b" above to show the Breathing Permit may not have been source

c. see "d" above to show that the God was revealing to him the explanations and translations of the original Abrahamic facsimiles

d. "Translation" isn't always a word-for-word process, nor a perfect process.  Joseph Smith may have introduced anachronistic words as he filtered the revelation through him.

 

These are just a few of the many answers you could find on these issues.  Lots out there that talk about all these points.

 

Now, full disclosure, I don't believe the BoA.  I don't find any of these convincing.  But are they "possible"?  yes.  I just don't find them probable and see other more highly probable scenarios that account for the evidence.

 

To say the Missing Papyri and Catalyst Theory "fail" (i know they weren't your words) is a little off point.  It's more that they are weak and unconvincing... to me anyway.

Thanks. I love how a person who doesn't believe the BoA has given such a good response. I agree. The statements in the OP can be challenged.

If we are dealing with scripture that was "translated" by the power of God, any theory of how it happened will have problems. God's ways are not man's ways.

[DBMormon]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62230-my-paper-on-the-book-of-abraham-criticisms-and-defenses-please-review/page-2#entry1209319029

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/41813-robert-ritner-and-facsimile-3/page-3#entry1208612853

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62230-my-paper-on-the-book-of-abraham-criticisms-and-defenses-please-review/?p=1209319029

 

I think that Robert F. Smith knows more about Egyptian iconography than anyone on this board.  I don't know how the Book of Abraham came about, although I believe Kevin Barney's Semitic Adaptation theory is the most plausible of apologetic arguments.  Also, it seems to me that critics primarily focus on the production of the BofA, not its content. 

For the record, this thread is about its production and not it's content

[DBMormon]

Thanks. I love how a person who doesn't believe the BoA has given such a good response. I agree. The statements in the OP can be challenged.

If we are dealing with scripture that was "translated" by the power of God, any theory of how it happened will have problems. God's ways are not man's ways.

Then take a position of standing with one of these and reconcile its flaws with a reasonable argument.  I would enjoy seeing one made.

[Duncan]

I Don't know.  I didn't know one had to have an answer to a problem to pose a question or to discuss the problem.

 

well, hahahahha! what are you (or anyone) offering that's better than what is believed or taught?! 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

 

This is a faulty assumption. One that critics have made. As I recall there have been some lively debates about Abr 1:12 and the assumption it A) should even be included in the scriptures as the case has been made that some one added those words after the fact and B) that this is really refering to the facs we have and not something else. I relly don't like to base things on assumptions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

well, hahahahha! what are you (or anyone) offering that's better than what is believed or taught?! 

Nothing, it is so much fun to rip apart what you believe and offer you nothing in return.

 

The catalyst theory is fine for me. I see no compelling reason to disbelieve it.

[DBMormon]

well, hahahahha! what are you (or anyone) offering that's better than what is believed or taught?! 

so what now, you mock that I ask a serious question because I have no alternative answer.  Should we hold bad answers just to be holding an answer?   rather than acknowledge we have no comfortable answer on the how of the BOA?

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon

[CA Steve]

For the record, this thread is about its production and not it's content

If we are just focusing on production then I think David Bokovoy's book, which I highly recommend,  deals with this very issue in his chapter on the Book of Abraham.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Authoring-Testament-Genesis%C2%96-Deuteronomy-David-Bokovoy/dp/1589585887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415984069&sr=8-1&keywords=authoring+the+old+testament

 

 

David points out that the due to "...Book of Abraham's textual dependency on late Judean sources that came into being over a millennium after the time of Abraham, making it impossible to directly connect the book of scripture with the ancient Patriarch".  Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy pg 165

 

So, according to David, whether or not you favor the catalyst or missing scroll theories, Abraham did not write what was on the Joseph Smith papyri. 

[DBMormon]

This is a faulty assumption. One that critics have made. As I recall there have been some lively debates about Abr 1:12 and the assumption it A) should even be included in the scriptures as the case has been made that some one added those words after the fact and B) that this is really refering to the facs we have and not something else. I relly don't like to base things on assumptions.

CFR for these words not being original to the document.

[DBMormon]

well, hahahahha! what are you (or anyone) offering that's better than what is believed or taught?! 

Also I assume by this you are admitting your view is indefensible but that it is better in your mind than having no reconciliiatory view at all

Edited November 14, 2014 by DBMormon