Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see the difference between "iconotropy" and what is known as the "catalyst theory" in the BOA.

 

I think they are essentially one and the same.  Joseph interpreted the pictures the way he did, because of his total experience with the bible, folk magic, masonry and who knows how many other inputs, including as a primary one, direct inspiration from God.

 

THAT is my understanding of the "catalyst theory", or is at least my version of it.  Is that different from your view?  He interpreted the pictures and was inspired to reveal the Book of Abraham?

Since we do not have whatever illustrations were originally used by Abraham (Abr 1:12 suggests that Abe first used an Amorite or early Aramaic altar in North Syria in his original illustration, now replaced by Fac 1), and since we do have very late Egyptian illustrations, which may have been used by Jewish scribes who were transmitting the BofA text, Joseph may have provided explanations which matched the intentions of those late Jewish scribes, along with a good deal of inspiration on the original intent.  The point is (as suggested by me and Kevin Barney) that a Semitic adaptation of these Egyptian illustrations is taking place, which is no surprise and has plenty of precedent.  I do not see that as the same as the catalyst theory, Mark.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

This reminds me of the guys on "Seinfeld" saying that mantra repeatedly, as though to call forth some magical forgiveness for straying much too close to a politically incorrect stance (they are desperate that no one see them for what they are).

 

In this case, however, the problem with leaving evidence to fend for itself is that practical reality requires that evidence be interpreted by various parties, both expert and ordinary -- in a courtroom, for example, where advocates and witnesses present their competing views, and then the jury retires to deliberate and decide what is most likely to have been the case in fact.  A flawed system to be sure, Mark, but the only viable one in legal disputes.

Yes Bob I am glad you brought up that example.

 

I know of no better example of the social creation of "facts" than a jury, where regardless of what "actually happened", the "facts" are created by the decision of 12 people.  Of course it is well known that juries do not always get it right.

 

That is about the best example of the social interpretation of "evidence" I can imagine- the trier of facts.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact

 

But fortunately juries do not decide the truth of religious beliefs

[volgadon]

So it is not surprising that Egyptian Syncretist Magician-Priests of that era who were well-versed in the story contained in the Book of Abraham would have transformed in their own minds through ritual in their religious practices the Book of Breathings for use with the Story of the Book of Abraham.  And their religious practices have been called "magic."  But it isn't really magical.  For example, in one publication in an article written by a scholar of the magical papyri, we read that certain of these magicians were magically and ritualistically transforming their books into the "Books of Moses:"

So far, then, the picture presented by the religion of the papyri is essentially that of the usual syncretism as we know it during the age of dying antiquity . . . The attention of the sorcerers is naturally centered on the two gods of light, Helios and Selene.  The former is identified with Apollo, with Mithras, with Ra-Horus, with Yahweh and his chief archangel Michael, the latter with Artemis, with Hectate, with Isis.  In the bewildering crowd of divine beings which appear on every page and in every column of the magical papyri it would seem almost impossible to constitute any order or system.  Yet, if one reads and rereads them, certain principles seem to stand out . . .

We can easily recognize here the admixture of Hebrew, Persian, and Egyptian elements . . .

Many years ago I called attention to a confusion in British Museum papyrus 46 . . . which seemed to prove that the original was compiled from loose scraps without much regard for their connection (or lack of connection), and that the 'Ring of Hermes' found its way into this theft-charm simply because in this, too, Hermes was invoked!  The cosmogony mentioned appears twice, with only slight variations, in the same papyrus, the first time under the title Monas, or Eighth Book of Moses, the second time as Moses's Holy Apocryphal (or Secret?) Book, called the Eighth or Holy book.  There is also mention of the same alleged author's book named Key, and the closing line of the papyrus promises further excerpts from a Tenth Book . . .  Sometimes we read also variations of the holy names, professedly found by the scribe in a different copy, and once, at least, an interpretative scholion has found its way into the text.  We are thus justified in assuming that our collections were formed from a large number of independent documents, and that the magicians adopted and adapted for their use whatever appealed to them as suiting their aims; in doing this they disregarded the original purposes of the various pieces.  So they may have taken over, bodily, hymns and prayers of mystic tales told by some of the many secret cult communities and conventicles which flourished elsewhere during the later periods.  The papyri may thus really contain pieces of actual cult ritual . . .  (Ernst Riess, The Classical Weekly, Monday, January 28, 1935, pp. 105-111)

 

 

From your blog, Ed Goble. I think that you have severely misread your source. It isn't talking about a transformation in the mind, but of cobbling together disparate texts, spells, and rituals in order to create new texts, spells and rituals. It really isn't what you've deduced.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes Bob I am glad you brought up that example.

 

I know of no better example of the social creation of "facts" than a jury, where regardless of what "actually happened", the "facts" are created by the decision of 12 people.  Of course it is well known that juries do not always get it right.

 

That is about the best example of the social interpretation of "evidence" I can imagine- the trier of facts.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact

 

But fortunately juries do not decide the truth of religious beliefs

Thank you for that Wikipedia piece.  I recently spent two weeks bailifing for an administrative law judge who was both judge and trier of fact.  I have even recommended to a friend in the past that he allow a criminal court judge to decide his case (court trial instead of jury trial) because I thought he had a better chance with an experienced judge.  I have seen juries go very wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Since we do not have whatever illustrations were originally used by Abraham (Abr 1:12 suggests that Abe first used an Amorite or early Aramaic altar in North Syria in his original illustration, now replaced by Fac 1), and since we do have very late Egyptian illustrations, which may have been used by Jewish scribes who were transmitting the BofA text, Joseph may have provided explanations which matched the intentions of those late Jewish scribes, along with a good deal of inspiration on the original intent.  The point is (as suggested by me and Kevin Barney) that a Semitic adaptation of these Egyptian illustrations is taking place, which is no surprise and has plenty of precedent.  I do not see that as the same as the catalyst theory, Mark.

 

Since we do not have whatever illustrations were originally used by Abraham (Abr 1:12 suggests that Abe first used an Amorite or early Aramaic altar in North Syria in his original illustration, now replaced by Fac 1), and since we do have very late Egyptian illustrations, which may have been used by Jewish scribes who were transmitting the BofA text, Joseph may have provided explanations which matched the intentions of those late Jewish scribes, along with a good deal of inspiration on the original intent.  The point is (as suggested by me and Kevin Barney) that a Semitic adaptation of these Egyptian illustrations is taking place, which is no surprise and has plenty of precedent.  I do not see that as the same as the catalyst theory, Mark.

Well I did not mean to assert that it WAS the same, just that I did not understand the difference, and indeed perhaps you have pointed out that difference.

 

On the other hand, one might be able to see it all as a number of successive imprecise links in a chain, all depending on each other for the ultimate precision of the conclusion, still making it about as precise as the catalyst theory.

 

I am still of the opinion that one pretty much has to want to believe it all to make it believable.  It bothers you that that would not convince a skeptic?

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for that Wikipedia piece.  I recently spent two weeks bailifing for an administrative law judge who was both judge and trier of fact.  I have even recommended to a friend in the past that he allow a criminal court judge to decide his case (court trial instead of jury trial) because I thought he had a better chance with an experienced judge.  I have seen juries go very wrong.

Indeed!  Yep, every once in a while, for a quick summary of not-too-controversial topics, wikipedia can be pretty useful.

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................  

I am still of the opinion that one pretty much has to want to believe it all to make it believable.  It bothers you that that would not convince a skeptic?

Yeh, I guess so, Mark.

I like skeptics.  They are so much more reasonable and logical than dyed in the wool believers in some irrational religion.

[mfbukowski]

Yeh, I guess so, Mark.

I like skeptics.  They are so much more reasonable and logical than dyed in the wool believers in some irrational religion.

Well good for you!  And see?  That's why we are friends!  It's a bloomin' miracle that I am a Mormon!

[HappyJackWagon]

You seem to miss my point, HappyJack.  The phrase "by his own hand" is virtually the same phrase which appears in the Pauline epistles, and no one believes that means that they are autograph copies -- except maybe some hayseed somewhere who just doesn't get it.  It really doesn't matter much what Joseph and his compadres believed at the time, but rather what the text actually says.  A test-based analysis is always superior to errant beliefs of yokels who have no experience in such matters.

 

I am unfamiliar with any claim made by the LDS Church, now or in the past, that Joseph translated the BofA "in a traditional way."  All of us should know how traditional translations are rendered -- by someone who knows the source and target languages -- so I am astounded that you would suggest that Joseph did anything like that, or claimed to, or that the Church has made that claim.  Nonsense.

 

The heading to the Book of Abraham still reads as it has all along "translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith," and "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt," etc.  Nowhere did Mormons then or now believe or assert that Joseph did that by traditional means.  All of them accepted that he did so as a prophet and seer, as was the case for the Book of Mormon.

What I mean by "traditional" translation is that the church taught that JS used the manuscript which contained the record of Father Abraham. Now the church suggests, by promulgating the theories, that its possible the words of Father Abraham were never on the papyrus but rather JS was inspired and the papyrus was just a catalyst. JS created a grammar book in effort to help him translate the BoA. It seems unreasonable to suggest that the church never taught the narrative that JS translated the BoA using the source material.

 

I don't understand why it is unimportant that JS thought the papyrus physically contained the words of Abraham "written by his own hand". It's what he and his compatriots believed and taught to the early church. That teaching continued until fairly recently. Contending that we shouldn't believe what the yokels and hayseeds (ie the prophet and apostles) thought because clearly he is less reliable than test-based analysis is a confusing message to be taught in the church. Is this just another way of lowering expectations in the prophet's abilities and teaching?

[DragonLancer]

No serious Book of Mormon scholar believes that the Maya are central to the Book of Mormon.  The last couple of major books by John L. Sorenson discuss the matter with great credibility, finding that the Nephite world centered on the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico, along the Grijalva River (= River Sidon, which must flow north).  If you want to find a people who based their religious beliefs and practices on the Mosaic Law, that might be a better place to look for them and to do ancient DNA comparisons.  So too, one might want to search for the earlier Jaredite civilization among the archeological remnants of the Olmec in Veracruz state.  The chronology of the rise and fall of these cultures matches those of the Book of Mormon peoples, which seems hardly likely purely by accident.

 

Wow.  I'm sure that this is something for another thread, but are you seriously discounting out of hand all of the research of the Usumacinta theorists just because of Sorenson?  Incredible.  I thought I would only continue to hear this kind of stuff about Cumorah in New York.  Unbelievable.

[DragonLancer]

From your blog, Ed Goble. I think that you have severely misread your source. It isn't talking about a transformation in the mind, but of cobbling together disparate texts, spells, and rituals in order to create new texts, spells and rituals. It really isn't what you've deduced.

 

Excuse me, but it is an example of Iconotropy, not precisely what I've deduced but very similar.  I think you are misreading what I'm saying again.  Go ahead and continue to disagree.  I see I've found an intellectual enemy in you anyway.

 

We do see this for the book of Abraham, and the Sensen Papyrus in particular.  We see Facsimile #2 cobbled together with Facsimile #1 and #3, when #1 and #3 are from Hor's papyrus, but Facsimile #2, was the Hypocephalus of Sheshonk.  That's about as disparate as you can get.  So you have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited November 20, 2014 by DragonLancer

[pogi]

 I see I've found an intellectual enemy in you anyway.

 

I prefer to view those who disagree with me as intellectual counterparts.  It helps me avoid the intellectual stumbling block of emotional attachment to unproven theories. 

[DragonLancer]

I prefer to view those who disagree with me as intellectual counterparts.  It helps me avoid the intellectual stumbling block of emotional attachment to unproven theories. 

 

Emotional attachment you say.  Anybody that knows me knows that I have always been one to retract when it finally becomes obvious that a theory is doomed.

I saw this for the Heartland Theory of Book of Mormon lands and retracted a whole book that I wrote on the subject with Wayne May. (now I have nothing to do with May, and believe in Mesoamerica for my Land southward.)

I have retracted and changed other parts of other books that I have written in favor of other theories.

 

I especially do not see this for my current theory on the Book of Abraham and the KEP.

Just because other Mormons do not accept the evidence that the critics have shown for translation activity for many decades now does not mean that it is inevitable that they will never accept it.

So long as academics who are missing papyrus people that are in power, maybe this is not in the near future.  But David Bokovoy for one is one that accepts the evidence as it is, that there is no missing papyrus, even though he does not share a theory like mine.

And if I am not right on every point in my theory, I predict that something like mine will surface to be entirely right, which shares some details with mine, if not all.

If I am only a pioneer in this thing, and everything that I believe about it is not right, then I will find allies eventually that will help me refine the theory, rather than people like volgadon that are intent on telling me that nothing I have to say is of value.

Edited November 20, 2014 by DragonLancer

[mfbukowski]

I am happy as a clam right now about the BOA, as a "catalyst" guy.

 

I see no need personally for any explanation of where it came from- I have no problem with Joseph's use of the word "translation" since it was clearly different than ours. 

 

Remember the inspired edition of the Bible had  ADDED CHAPTERS in what he called a "translation" and nobody blinked an eye at Joseph's lack of "scholarship" in producing the original manuscripts for what he supposedly "translated".   It's a shame he never finished it, because if he had, I am certain would have given us more light on the entire process.  It was as if it was plucked out of thin air- and of course as inspired writing that is exactly where it came from.

 

But anyway, for those who need a piece of paper to hold their testimonies together, I think that Bro. Ed here has a fine theory, if it is not perfect.

 

Probably 20 years ago when I first noticed the similarity of the PICTURE (as opposed to the translated Egyptian) of Facsimile 2 section 7, with a particular piece of temple content, it was clear to me that what Bro Goble is now proposing in a systematic fashion was exactly what happened.

 

That section was a key for me also to a far greater understanding of the symbolic language of the endowment.  Just look at that section, and see it as the Rosetta stone for temple symbolism, and I think it could change your entire understanding of the endowment.  Don't think about the Egyptian translation- just look at it as a naive Mormon flipping through a picture book, and suddenly it will come alive.

Emotional attachment you say. Anybody that knows me knows that I have always been one to retract when it finally becomes obvious that a theory is doomed.

 

So I say bravo to Bro Goble.  I know nothing about your scholarship, and don't care to waste time arguing about jots and tittles.  You are on to something and I appreciate your work.

 

And we are not all polite scholarly types around here- we are pretty bare knuckled sometimes, but it's kind of like the old west.  We get into a fight in the saloon and then pull each other up and buy the other one a drink (of caffeine-free coke of course)

 

I wouldn't let it get to me! 

volgadon is a pretty good guy once you get to know him.

Edited November 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I prefer to view those who disagree with me as intellectual counterparts.  It helps me avoid the intellectual stumbling block of emotional attachment to unproven theories.

See how you are? You dang Pragmatist!  Always causing trouble with your dang relativism!   

 

[DragonLancer]

. 

Edited November 20, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Brian 2.0]

Since we do not have whatever illustrations were originally used by Abraham (Abr 1:12 suggests that Abe first used an Amorite or early Aramaic altar in North Syria in his original illustration, now replaced by Fac 1), and since we do have very late Egyptian illustrations, which may have been used by Jewish scribes who were transmitting the BofA text, Joseph may have provided explanations which matched the intentions of those late Jewish scribes, along with a good deal of inspiration on the original intent.  The point is (as suggested by me and Kevin Barney) that a Semitic adaptation of these Egyptian illustrations is taking place, which is no surprise and has plenty of precedent.  I do not see that as the same as the catalyst theory, Mark.

 

Regarding Semitic adaptation of Egyptian illustrations... Are you suggesting that the Jewish scribes A) Copied and Modified the Egyptian Illustrations, B) Copied whole cloth without adaptation, or C) Attached already drawn Egyptian Illustrations to the papyri?

 

Option A seems unlikely since the scenes mostly appear as the Egyptian Illustrations do, including the Egyptian explanations of the scenes with the characters.

 

If it's option B or C where the Jewish redactor included the Illustrations in whole without adaptations... I'd be curious on evidences that this was done in the past and has "plenty of precedent."

 

All of the things I've seen to support Jewish Redaction (Instructions of Amenemope>Book of Proverbs, Egyptian psychostasy>Testament of Abraham, and Demotic sotry of Setna>Rich man and Lazarus in Luke) are not evidences of option B or C, but are instances where there was significant adaptation by the redactor.  I've seen no instances where a redactor used a vignette "in whole" without adapting it.  I'd be curious if there was something else I haven't seen.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Robert,

 

I may as well add that I've compiled my research on how researchers (I'm no pro) have approached this is regards to Facs 3 in this "paper."  I say paper in quotes because it's really just a paper to my father as we have been going back and forth in semi-debate (all is good spirits) on the matter.  I try to address the issue of Jewish redaction and why I feel it falls short, or at least doesn't have supporting evidence of it happening in the way Barney's theory suggests.

 

I'd be curious to your input if you felt the desire to look since you know a great deal about this field.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrqjmbpd8lht58f/Unloading%20Facsimile%203.pdf?dl=0

[pogi]

See how you are? You dang Pragmatist!  Always causing trouble with your dang relativism! 

 

 

I wouldn't go as far as to call me a relativist. Relativism...yes, to a point.  Relativist...no.  I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true" relativist.  If one believes that relativism is true for everybody, then they are an absolutist.  A true relativist could only say, "it is only relatively true that relativism is true."  Once they say, "it is absolutely true that relativism is true", then they are an absolutist. 

 

I believe that absolute, objective and eternal truth exists independent of our experience.  But I believe that the only way to get there is to commit to live our highest good as best we understand it (pragmatism/relativism).  I don't know what that makes me...a Mormon I guess.  

Edited November 20, 2014 by pogi

[DragonLancer]

. 

Edited November 20, 2014 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

Certainly. "[Y]ou are a person that has decided to use the "peer reviewed"  "Egyptological" sledge hammer to say, hey, here is my rule.  And your interpretation doesn't follow my established rule." You can go on about being a martyr to the establishment, but here is the thing. You are claiming that ancient Egyptians re-purposed hieroglyphs for something that goes completely against everything known about hieroglyphs. It isn't a minor point of disagreement, it makes utterly no sense in an Egyptian context, and is foreign to it, secondary intent or no. You are basically rejecting the entire discipline on the strength of your interpretation of the KEP, so once we've done that, why accept anything about Egypt and Egyptian that doesn't match our whims? You may have some dictionaries and online sources, but bcuz has recommended solid resources that can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

 

I haven't dismissed his resources at all.  I dismissed his attempt to minimize me and my research by presuming to suggest that I don't know even the basics about how conventional Egyptological Egyptian works, and by suggesting that I need to consult some real sources.  I told you I have real sources that tell me as much as the sources he suggests about the basics of how regular Egyptian works.  Would you like me to go home and give you the bibliography of what I have on my shelf?

 

Similarly, you are saying that I am not even the slightest bit knowledgeable.  You don't know what I'm knowledgeable in.  I have studied this for almost two decades on my own, starting in '96.  And I assure you that I know precisely already how Egyptological Egyptian works with the Uniliterals, the Biliterals, the Triliterals, the determinatives and so forth.  I have not at all suggested that it is NOT so that Egyptological Egyptian DOES read the way it reads and works the way it works.  It is you that suggest that regular hieroglyphs cannot be taken out of a certain context and repurposed by other people.  I never suggested that Egyptological Egyptian does not work the way it works.  It is you that said that I said that.  It's not me that is suggesting that the hieroglyphs and hieratic characters are being used this way.  It is the KEP that says so.  

 

You say its merely my interpretation of the KEP.  Then tell me why the KEP has the reed symbol from the Sensen Papyrus with "Chalsidonhiash"/Land of the Chaldees assigned to it, when it is merely a hieratic letter I?  Its because its using it in a different way than conventional Egyptian.  That is not my "interpretation" of it.  That is plain for all the eyes in the universe to see that look at the page and can see that the KEP assigns the meaning "land of the Chaldees" to a hieratic letter I.  It's not a mere "interpretation" that this is the case.  Even Will Schryver knows that things are being "assigned" values of this or that in the KEP, even though he believes it was a modern thing.  And it does it over and over again.  Thats why Joseph Smith called this the "Egyptian Alphabet" because of alphabetic characters being used for abstract symbols that are given this or that meaning through the mapping of the meaning to the character.

 

So once again, I say, you can argue with this if you want to, but its not me that made that system up.  That's merely the evidence in the KEP, and that is you refusing to accept that as evidence of anything.

 

If you want to turn around and say, "No Egyptological book has this type of thing in it, and until it does, your theory has no standing."  Well, then, that's an argument from authority, asserting that nobody can have a theory like this until someone like John Gee or Robert Ritner writes a book that says they can.  That's different than saying that "you have no knowledge about Egyptian at all" and you are dismissing everything in Egyptology.  I haven't dismissed anything in Egyptology at all.  I am suggesting a system outside of Egytology that Egyptologists have not encountered prior to this.  If you have this kind of a criticism in mind, that becomes a criticism of the fact that Egyptology doesn't account for what is in the KEP yet.  Still, that is not my problem, because you discount that and act like I have no evidence at all for anything because I don't have evidence for everything yet.  That simply is not the case.   That doesn't prove it wasn't so.  That's just you demanding proof for something like steel in the Book of Mormon, nevermind the rest of the evidence for Mesoamerica, just because LDS archaeologists haven't found it yet.  Then you may say something like, well the burden of proof is on you to produce it or none of us will be convinced.  Perhaps, but that's what research is for, to find out what you don't know yet.

 

LDS Egyptologists accept that Khnum Ra is the symbol for Kolob, and sit there and argue for it, but no Egyptologist outside the church would buy it.  So we are all in this type of situation to one degree or another.  You sitting here telling me that I must produce proof of one thing or another that you determine in your mind in your own set of things that must be present for you to be convinced or you will not be convinced is not news.  That may be true for you, but will not be true for everyone.  And obviously, I'm not going to roll over and die just because you tell me that I must have it your way or no way at all.  Non-LDS Egyptological criticisms of Kerry Muhlstien coming from Non-LDS egyptologists never stopped him.  I see no difference here with what I'm doing and the criticism I'm facing from you.

[volgadon]

If I am only a pioneer in this thing, and everything that I believe about it is not right, then I will find allies eventually that will help me refine the theory, rather than people like volgadon that are intent on telling me that nothing I have to say is of value.

 

That is why you aren't likely to find allies this way. I have not said that nothing you have is of value. You reacted quite belligerently towards me when I stated where we diverge, in case you didn't notice.

[volgadon]

If it's option B or C where the Jewish redactor included the Illustrations in whole without adaptations... I'd be curious on evidences that this was done in the past and has "plenty of precedent."

 

More than a few cases where Jews used pagan images without significant modification, and decorated synagogues and cemeteries with them. there is also a rabbinic discussion of the proper iconography for Serapis and Isis, which are explicitly identified with Joseph and Eve, respectively!

[DragonLancer]

That is why you aren't likely to find allies this way. I have not said that nothing you have is of value. You reacted quite belligerently towards me when I stated where we diverge, in case you didn't notice.

 

When someone has been beaten down with nothing but unfriendly and disrespectful out-of hand, categorical dismissals by a lot of people, that type of thing starts to wear him down over time.  When you attempt to beat down someone like that you will probably, naturally get a negative reaction from him.  As far as I'm concerned, this conversation has run its course for me, and I see no value in it.  It's yet another bad experience in my history that has reminded me why I should stay away from here and not return.  Somehow, every time that I do return, I keep hoping somebody may extend a hand to me and that it will turn out differently.  I'd like to thank "mfbukowski" for bringing a few positive things to this conversation.  For some of the rest of you I guess, not so much.  See you around I guess.

Edited November 21, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Robert F. Smith]

Regarding Semitic adaptation of Egyptian illustrations... Are you suggesting that the Jewish scribes A) Copied and Modified the Egyptian Illustrations, B) Copied whole cloth without adaptation, or C) Attached already drawn Egyptian Illustrations to the papyri?

 

Option A seems unlikely since the scenes mostly appear as the Egyptian Illustrations do, including the Egyptian explanations of the scenes with the characters.

 

If it's option B or C where the Jewish redactor included the Illustrations in whole without adaptations... I'd be curious on evidences that this was done in the past and has "plenty of precedent."

 

All of the things I've seen to support Jewish Redaction (Instructions of Amenemope>Book of Proverbs, Egyptian psychostasy>Testament of Abraham, and Demotic sotry of Setna>Rich man and Lazarus in Luke) are not evidences of option B or C, but are instances where there was significant adaptation by the redactor.  I've seen no instances where a redactor used a vignette "in whole" without adapting it.  I'd be curious if there was something else I haven't seen.

"Adaptation" can include simply taking the Egyptian artistic item unchanged and reinterpreting it.  Thus, in the case of the Breathing Text, the Jewish scribe could easily have reimagined the iconography of the beginning and ending illustrations (facsimiles) as applied to the Abraham text he is passing on, and could have copied the entire Abraham text on the back (or other empty portion) of the Hor Breathing Text.  This (A) reinterpretation was regularly done by Israelites and other Semites (see below).

 

In other cases, the illustration and text are changed to fit a Semitic use of an Egyptian template:  In the first and second illustrations of my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, version 8, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham, are specific examples of actual Semitic adaptation (the second example is only one of a large number), and (on pages 5-6) many other examples are cited from the Greek and Demotic magical papyri.  This is also characteristic of both the Testament of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham (pages 10-11).

 

More examples can be found in my “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986); online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/54423164-“Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-”-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 .  See esp. ##7, 12,14&15, and search inside for “Facsimile 3” for a variety of useful BofA parallels.

 

I hesitate to provide a long bibliography of Egyptian iconotropy in Semitic use, but you seem to be asking for it:

 

A. Kuntillet-ˁAjrud graffiti -- Bible Review, 8/4 (Aug 1992):30-31; BAR, 20/2 (Mar/Apr 1994):52-53,

 

B. hundreds of Canaanite and Israelite scarabs, cylinder seals, and stamp seals, and bullae -- BAR, 21/6 (Nov-Dec 1995):cover, 3-4,48-52; BAR, 23/2 (Mar-Apr 1997):47-48; James K. Hoffmeier, "Son of God: From Pharaoh to Israel's Kings to Jesus," Bible Review, (June 1997):46-48; BAR, 24/3 (May-June 1998):54-56,62; BAR, 27/4 (July-Aug 2001):44-51,59; Robert Deutsch, “Lasting Impressions: New Bullae Reveal Egyptian-Style Emblems on Judah’s Royal Seals,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 28/4 (Jul-Aug 2002):42-51,60-62; Benjamin Sass and Christoph Uehlinger, eds., Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (Fribourg: Univ. Press/ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); Beatrice Teissier, Egyptian Iconography in Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, OBO 11 Series Archaeologia (Fribourg/ Göttingen, 1996); Nahman Avigad, Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judaean Archive, QEDEM 4 (Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ., 1976); Othmar Keel, Corpus der Stempelsiegel: Amulette aus Palästina/ Israel; note, for example, BAR, 8/5 (Sept-Oct 1982):cover, photo of limestone bust of an Ammonite king (9^th cent. B.C.), wearing the ancient Egyptian crown of Osiris, the Зtfw-crown (“wrapped-crown,” with ostrich feather along each side of the crown), and with flowers in a rosette pattern along the base of the front – described on p. 36.

 

C. numerous Israelite ostraca with hieratic Egyptian, with Israelite-Egyptian weights & measures – William Dever in Paul Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, Society for Biblical Literature (N.Y.: HarperCollins/ Harper San Francisco, 1985), 1128-1129, and Tables B & C; Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah, JSOT Supplement 276 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Stefan Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift, Ägypten und Altes Testament 75(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008); Robert F. Smith, “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

D. similarity of Semitic and Egyptian ritual – Bible Review, 16/6 (Dec 2000):14-21; Psalm 104 = Akhnaton's hymn to the sun-disk Aton, Archaeology Odyssey, 2/3 (July-Aug 1999):48; Aylward M. Blackman, “The Rite of Opening the Mouth in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 10 (1024):47-59; John A. Tvedtnes,  "Egyptian Etymologies for Biblical Cultic Paraphernalia," in Sarah Israelit-Groll, ed., Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28 (Jerusalem, 1982), 215-221; Shmuel Yeivin, “Canaanite Ritual Vessels in Egyptian Cultic Practice,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 62 (1976):110-114.

 

E. generally – Carolyn R. Higginbotham, “The Egyptianizing of Canaan,” BAR, 24/3 (May-June 1998):36-43, 69; Othmar Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998); R. J. Williams, "Egypt and Israel," in J. R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of Egypt, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 257-290; Abraham S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relation to Egyptian (N.Y./Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933); Gregory Mumford, "International Relations Between Egypt, Sinai, and Syria-Palestine in the LB Age to Early Persian Period (Dynasties 18-26; cf. 1950-525 B.C.): A Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Distribution and Proportions of Egyptian(izing) Artefacts and Pottery in Sinai and Selected Sites in Syria-Palestine," 4 vols., doctoral dissertation (University of Toronto, 1998); Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1992); Yoshiyuki Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, SBL Dissertation Series 173 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); Bernd Ulrich Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems, OBO 170 (Freiburg/Göttingen, 1999).