Robert F. Smith Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) 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=0I'll read it when I can access it, Brian, but in the meantime, see my post #375 for some materials on Fac. 3. *My system won't allow me to access your paper directly or even the dropbox site. Edited November 21, 2014 by Robert F. Smith
volgadon Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) I'll read it when I can access it, Brian, but in the meantime, see my post #375 for some materials on Fac. 3. *My system won't allow me to access your paper directly or even the dropbox site. I copied the relevant section: SECTION TWO: Apologetic ResponsesThe Jewish Redaction Theory:This theory posits that the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith owned and translated intothe current Book of Abraham was not “written by [Abraham’s] own hand,” but insteadwas a copy of what Abraham wrote. And this copy was made by a Jewish scribe whoadded in certain Egyptian vignettes as illustrations.Kevin L. Barney wrote:“I suggest that as part of the redaction of the text, J-red (our hypotheticalEgyptian-Jewish redactor) adopted or adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustrations for the Book of Abraham. In co-opting the papyri to a new purpose, this person reinterpreted them in accordance with Semitic religious sensibilities and the requirements of the Abraham story. Therefore, the Egyptian material in the facsimiles has been refracted through a Semitic prism. It is only by viewing the facsimiles through a Semitic lens that we can clearly see how the explanations relate to the figures.”Barney goes on to show three examples of Jewish redaction to support this theory:1.Parallels between the certain sections of the Egyptian Instructions of Amenemope and certain verses of the biblical Book of Proverbs2.Parallels between judgements scenes in Egyptian psychostasy (“soul weighting”) papyrus and a judgement scene in The Testament of Abraham3.Parallels between the Egyptian Demotic story of Setna and the biblical story of the rich man and Lazarus in The Gospel of Luke.The examples show similarities and parallels in certain sections of a story or certain parts of pictures. The similarities are close enough for some scholars to believe the Jewish writer was borrowing from the Egyptian source when penning his own work. As Barney put it, the Egyptian scenes have “been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities.” But when we look to Facsimile 3, it has not been transformed. It has not not been altered to accord with Semitic purpose. Facsimile 3 is not similar to an Egyptian scene... it is an Egyptian scene with the Egyptian characters. So in order to use this theory, you need to assume that this hypothetical Jewish redactor included Facsimile 3 with the Book of Abraham without actually altering any of it’s Egyptian parts, including the Egyptian characters that identify what the Facsimile is about. Supporters of this theory have yet to provide any evidence of a Jewish redactor doing such a thing. At this point, in regards to Facsimile 3, the Jewish Redaction Theory is simply a theory without any meaningful evidence. Edited November 21, 2014 by volgadon
Robert F. Smith Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I copied the relevant section:.................................................................... Thanks, buddy.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 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................................................................... https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrqjmbpd8lht58f/Unloading%20Facsimile%203.pdf?dl=0Based on what volgadon copied for me, I would add to what I have said already that the Jewish scribe who is recopying the text of the Book of Abraham nearly two thousand years later may not have had the original illustration of the altar referred to in Abe 1, so he did the best he could and found a standard Egyptian altar illustration, with an Anubis-priest on it and canopic-gods underneath, etc. It was part of the Breathing Text he had acquired, but that need not have bothered him. Moreover, he needed the empty part of that papyrus in order to copy the Abraham text. Whether the original Book of Abraham even had two other illustrations is up for debate, but Fac 3 is part of the Book of Breathings, while the Hypocephalus is an indepdendent amulet. Both could be interpreted to fit the Book of Abraham. He might have thought the confluence of iconographic factors which fit so well rather a kind of religious destiny. How pseudepigraphic it might have become in the course of all that time is unknown, but the possibilities are clearly present.
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 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. Oops. If we can get there it's not beyond our experience is it? And if it IS beyond our experience, then we can't know about it.
Brian 2.0 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 "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 (9th 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, 2nd 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). Thanks Robert, I'll check these out for sure.
pogi Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Oops. If we can get there it's not beyond our experience is it? Right, but I was speaking of our present mortal experience only.It might be beyond the eternal experience of some however, but I would argue that it is no less absolute. And if it IS beyond our experience, then we can't know about it. Assume that absolute truth exists. Those truths can be experienced in an absolute way and in a relative way. Until we can experience the fullness of God and see all the variable (be one with Him) beyond the filter of the veil, mortality, culture, religion, etc., all we have is relative experience, even though we might have pieces of absolute truth. Until we have all the pieces, we can only interpret those pieces relative to our culture etc. Until we can put it in the context of the whole, we don't really have a good idea of what we are looking at and it may be interpreted differently. Thus, people claim it is relative. Well, they might be both right and wrong in that we have a relative understanding of an absolute truth. Though we might not understand it in it's proper context, we can know that we have a piece of absolute truth through the spirit. Let's use this thread as a metaphor. We have pieces of truth as to how Joseph really produced the BoA, but until we see the whole picture, we will undoubtedly interpret the evidence differently. It becomes relative to our limited experience and we say that we simply don't and can't know for sure. Yet, there are some pieces that we CAN know for sure. That Joseph was indeed a prophet who through divine methods produced the BoA in English. We can know that the BoA is the word of God. But once again, until we can see the big picture, even those absolute truths that we CAN know, will be understood and interpreted differently and relative to our limited experience.
mfbukowski Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Brother PogiI understand what you are saying completely and I do not disagree with any of it. But I have learned that if one wants to communicate in the philosophical realm, one must communicate like a philosopher. One might ask "Who cares to communicate like a philosopher?" I think the answer is "us". And the reason is for missionary purposes. If we are to convince the the contemporary world of the "validity" of our position we must be able to speak their language. We can go to France and stand on the street corner and preach in English, but we will not be communicating effectively. I think we need to change that. So I will take off my TBM hat and put on my philosophical TBM hat and try yet again to straddle the chasm. My goal is not to argue or put down, or anything else, but to present perhaps a different point of view which might illustrate better how we can define our beliefs in different terms which will communicate better to atheists and contemporary humanists. I am convinced we need to drop the Greek pagan metaphysics we were born into and move on to a fully developed Restoration theology and philosophy to take us into the future. We cannot continue with sectarian and apostate modes of thinking and take the Restoration into the future. Old school "religion" is dying! And there is a reason for that- philosophically the world has moved on. Nietzsche was right when he said "God is dead", but the god that died was never the God we know. The god who died was the apostate sectarian god Nietzsche knew and hated Right, but I was speaking of our present mortal experience only.It might be beyond the eternal experience of some however, but I would argue that it is no less absolute.Well mortal experience is pretty dang relative if you ask me. Nothing in my life is unchanging- it is even difficult to conceive of anything real being unchanging. Yes there are some rules that probably always work. One of these I think is the golden rule- or some variation like the Kantian Categorical Imperative etc. What keeps us alive is an "absolute" in all human cultures. The 10 commandments keep us alive and happy living in society. A peaceful pleasant society cannot tolerate murder, adultery, stealing etc etc. It's the "Way of Life" in the Didache vs the "Way of Death".But that's not some metaphysical Realm of Absolutes floating around as Plato might have seen it- here we have absolutes that are practical instead of a metaphysical realm beyond our experience. We all KNOW murder is wrong. It's inside us to know that. Call it the Light of Christ, the still small voice, or common sense, it is inside us and we need it to live the kinds of lives we like to live. Assume that absolute truth exists.Oh gosh do I really have to ?? I don't even know that that means. The only things that can be true or false are sentences. Do "Absolute Sentences" exist? No, they are words on a page or out of a mouth. They are a group of ambiguous symbols, squiggles on a page or vibrations on the air that last a nanosecond. How can they be absolute? Those truths can be experienced in an absolute way and in a relative way. Sorry, no clue.. Until we can experience the fullness of God and see all the variable (be one with Him) beyond the filter of the veil, mortality, culture, religion, etc., all we have is relative experience, even though we might have pieces of absolute truth Look, I believe that there IS pre-linguistic experience but that is a very controversial view. I have had arguments online and otherwise by linguistics guys who thought I was nuts to think that there was even a nano-second of brain activity which was not hooked up to a language center- or conditioned by language itself. But OK I get what you are saying- you go over a hill and see a magnificent vista and get that "wow!" experience before you can even think of the world "Beautiful!" You look up at the night sky and know you are NOTHING and you behold the wonder of God. But I would not call that a "piece of absolute truth". I would call it what I called it. Language is important. But the minute we speak, poof, it's gone. That beauty went away into a puff of vibrations in the air, or squiggles on a page, all ready to be misinterpreted by someone else. Sigh. Until we have all the pieces, we can only interpret those pieces relative to our culture etc. Until we can put it in the context of the whole, we don't really have a good idea of what we are looking at and it may be interpreted differently. Thus, people claim it is relative. Well, they might be both right and wrong in that we have a relative understanding of an absolute truth. Though we might not understand it in it's proper context, we can know that we have a piece of absolute truth through the spirit. YES- exactly nails it. But I would say that we know we have direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally. Saying we have "we have a piece of absolute truth through the spirit." is like suddenly speaking Mandarin for an atheist or humanist. Poof. We have lost him. He sees that old Greek nonsense, and all the garbage he learned in Catechism class when he was 7, and poof- we have lost him. Saying "we have direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally" might get him to hang on for the next sentence. Let's use this thread as a metaphor. We have pieces of truth as to how Joseph really produced the BoA, but until we see the whole picture, we will undoubtedly interpret the evidence differently. It becomes relative to our limited experience and we say that we simply don't and can't know for sure. Yet, there are some pieces that we CAN know for sure. That Joseph was indeed a prophet who through divine methods produced the BoA in English. We can know that the BoA is the word of God. But once again, until we can see the big picture, even those absolute truths that we CAN know, will be understood and interpreted differently and relative to our limited experience. Yep. Agreed. Did that help some?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 ....................................................................................................................I am convinced we need to drop the Greek pagan metaphysics we were born into and move on to a fully developed Restoration theology and philosophy to take us into the future. ................................................................................................ Yes, and you're the man to do it.
pogi Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) MFB,It sounds like you agree with me but prefer that I say, "we know we have direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally", instead of saying, "we know absolute truth through the spirit"? Is that the gist of what you are saying? Honestly, if you understand what I am saying, that's all I care about. I am not too concerned about snobby intellectuals who are too prideful to pray because I didn't use the proper jargon. If they get hung up on metaphysical ideas such as "eternal truth", or the concept that "truth is light", what's the point? They are going to BARF when they read the book of Mormon. I am more concerned with the lay man who is willing to pray despite my weakness in words. Even you won't disagree that they are JUST words. Here is something that ALL missionaries say - "pray to know with real intent and full purpose of heart in all humility, and the spirit will reveal it unto you." In other words - "you will know through direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally." It's the same thing. Until God is measurable or known in His fullness, we cannot drop metaphysics. Edited November 22, 2014 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Yes, and you're the man to do it.You're too kind- but I do have a few ideas on approaches I would like to kick around with you- when I have a few minutes I will email or pm you, I'd like to get your opinions on the approach. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 MFB,It sounds like you agree with me but prefer that I say, "we know we have direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally", instead of saying, "we know absolute truth through the spirit"? Is that the gist of what you are saying? Honestly, if you understand what I am saying, that's all I care about. I am not too concerned about snobby intellectuals who are too prideful to pray because I didn't use the proper jargon. If they get hung up on metaphysical ideas such as "eternal truth", or the concept that "truth is light", what's the point? They are going to BARF when they read the book of Mormon. I am more concerned with the lay man who is willing to pray despite my weakness in words. Even you won't disagree that they are JUST words. Spirit and light are not in the words, but are conveyed through them. Here is something that ALL missionaries say - "pray to know with real intent and full purpose of heart in all humility, and the spirit will reveal it unto you." In other words - "you will know through direct experience which cannot be conveyed verbally." It's the same thing.I honestly don't care how you say it, and I don't disagree with any of this. I think we pretty much understand each other But I think it needs to be said at least once in their language. I keep thinking a lot of good could be accomplished if they could be reached. But we definitely need to stop thinking like the sectarians imo.
williamsmith Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 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? The missing Papyrus theory does not fail. A. You falsely assume that the Facsimile 1 we have is the "only" one Joseph had. Other texts he had, such as the BOA itself, could have easily also used Facsimile 1.Various Egyptian scholars non-LDS ones even have discovered that Facsimile's have been used in various ways, including by Jews like Abraham, and also interpretations which goes to your other claim below. B. Not sure what you're stating here, but are you talking about the "hand writing" on the margins? If so, why would you assume that Joseph would "write on" the actual BOA?Further, non-LDS Egytopologists as I stated above have found that various Egyptian writings have been used and interpreted differently by different peoples. C. First there are a few consistent account's of "how much" papyri there actually was, thus simply cherry picking that the BOA could have ONLY come from that particular scroll, is completely ignorant, especially if given my above statements, the BOA was actually another text. D. Incorrect. "Some" of the translations fail according to the "most common" accepted translations of the texts,, images and interpretations. What is ignored completely, is the "less common" usages and translations of the same images and texts, which both non-LDS and LDS Egyptologists have discovered. Abraham would have been a "non-traditional" usage and interpretation of the text, thus it's not surprising much would be inconsistent. Several of these interpretations and texts of Joseph have in fact been found to have existed, and corrolates well with Abraham. This idea that Joseph just "made things up" is completely false. Anti's completely ignore the evidences of otherwise that support Joseph's usage. The Catalyst theory does fail some, and it's not one I per se hold to, but there are also problems with your views. A. First, this is one reason why it fails, is because Joseph was clear he had the actual BOA. Of course, it still could have been a catalyst, and Joseph simply didn't know any different. Your last statement is false however. Copies of an original document is still considered the words of the original author. Millions accept the Bible as being Revelations from God and written by Prophets, and being their own words and even hand, yet we all know they are copies upon copies. Your dwelling on this is much ado about nothing. B. Since I don't accept your interpretation as being accurate of the facts of the history, this comment also fails. C. Assumptions not in evidence.... As I said above, just because something isn't done according to the "most known" and common accepted way, doesn't mean words and images were not ever used in other ways. This HAS been proven to have occured. It's why the true experts on the BOA, especially the Egyptian ones, still absolutely believe in it. They see the evidences anti-mormons don't. And so do we who follow these things. D. Anachronisms mean nothing.... Joseph translated into and with his own tongue, knowledge and understanding. This for example is the very reason the lost manuscript was re-done and not included, because translating when things come by revelation is not always "word for word".... it's principles, ideas, teachings, history, etc. Revelation comes through a human mind, that mind is not a "robot" simply repeating perfection. This is why the BOM has the statement of it being the "most correct" book, when it comes to God's Word and message. It doesn't say "perfect word", "infallible word" etc. Because it came through man, and man spoke it, and wrote it down, and put it to printing press, etc. etc. Thus there ARE going to be errors, and there ARE going to be reference points from the humans own mind. Conclusion, while I'm not exactly for the Catalyst theory, given the fact that the is plenty of evidence that Joseph had a LOT of scrolls, not just one. I am for the Revelation theory.Real or not, all of it came by revelation.... Further, I would like to point out something else. Because we know Joseph had a lot of scrolls, and we know for a fact that he both gave away and sold of lot of it, why would you assume that the "actual" BOA would end up in some strangers junk, and then eventually be donated to a Museum? Clearly, the fragments we have were some of the scrolls that were given away or sold. It's also clear that given the "contamination" of it, that it was a "working copy" of likely the Fascimilees alone, not the "actual" BOA. No Prophet would write on the "real" BOA, even if they were actually fake. Thus, the anti-mormon views on this issue are false. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) 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://dialoguejour...com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles. The missing Papyrus theory does not fail. A. You falsely assume that the Facsimile 1 we have is the "only" one Joseph had. Other texts he had, such as the BOA itself, could have easily also used Facsimile 1.Various Egyptian scholars non-LDS ones even have discovered that Facsimile's have been used in various ways, including by Jews like Abraham, and also interpretations which goes to your other claim below. B. ............................................................................................ Further, non-LDS Egytopologists as I stated above have found that various Egyptian writings have been used and interpreted differently by different peoples. C. First there are a few consistent account's of "how much" papyri there actually was, thus simply cherry picking that the BOA could have ONLY come from that particular scroll, is completely ignorant, especially if given my above statements, the BOA was actually another text. D. Incorrect. "Some" of the translations fail according to the "most common" accepted translations of the texts,, images and interpretations. What is ignored completely, is the "less common" usages and translations of the same images and texts, which both non-LDS and LDS Egyptologists have discovered. Abraham would have been a "non-traditional" usage and interpretation of the text, thus it's not surprising much would be inconsistent. Several of these interpretations and texts of Joseph have in fact been found to have existed, and corrolates well with Abraham. This idea that Joseph just "made things up" is completely false. Anti's completely ignore the evidences of otherwise that support Joseph's usage............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................ aA is a false assumption by Bill Reel and those he is following: In my lengthy BofA Commentary (forthcoming) I point out that "it is crucial to note that virtually all of the so-called 'Instructions' (e.g., of Ptaotep, of Hardjedef, of Amenemope, to Merikareʿ, to Kagemni, et al.) are 'preserved in papyrus copies of later times.' Such texts were usually revised and the language updated to make them comprehensible to later readers. However, some of the texts – the 'Exorcism of ʿЗpp,' the 'Shabaku Stone,' etc. – remain in very archaic language, though preserved only in copies up to two thousand years later, and H. W. Fairman writes about a ritual dramatic text of ca. 110 B.C. going back to the First Dynasty. In view of the late date and genre of the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri, some have unfairly questioned the possibility of very archaic texts being recopied and placed with or attached to these late documents. Yet, as A. Szczudlowska’s study makes clear, during New Kingdom and even Roman times, texts of the Old Kingdom were recopied and attached to copies of the Book of the Dead spells, e.g., BD 112, 128, 178, etc. Pyramid Texts were even copied on coffin lids in the Saitic period and later. Miriam Lichtheim provides another example in noting that the hieroglyphic Book of the Dead Papyrus of Tentruty (Papyrus Berlin 3008 of the Ptolemaic period) contained a hieratic appendix of “The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,” which was 'adapted to the use of an individual person.' Ed Ashment correctly makes the point that Egyptian Magical Papyrus 8.8, which contains the name Abraham (ABRAHME/ ABRACAM), 'seems to have been used as a magical representational device in connection with certain magical spells.' In another case, found in 1896 in the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were three magical papyri 'which were written on the back of old military dispatches.' Indeed, 'John Gee estimates that about 40% of known Sensen texts have other texts attached to them.' Just so, papyri were applied to a variety of contexts, and were simply reused when necessary!" Thus, a Book of Abraham text being copied onto the same papyrus containing the Hor Breathing Text would be in line with standard Egyptology. bB Standard Egyptian symbols can be reinterpreted by Semites and others. For example, within Egypt the winged sun-disk is always the sun-god Re. Yet the God of Abraham is termed the “Sun” in Psalm 84:11, and Malachi 4:2. Moreover, outside Egypt, winged sun-disks were everywhere the symbol of Semitic ʼEl, the head of pantheon for both Israelites and Canaanites. It must emphasized as well that iconography differs from one people to another, and the reading of illustrations depends as much on the drawings as on the written texts. cC The Hor Breathing Text is an Egyptian document. However, the discussion on this board a couple years ago is helpful, especially CA Steve, post #50, at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58970-robert-k-ritners-the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-a-complete-edition/page__st__40 . There is plenty of room on the Hor Breathing Text for the Book of Abraham, and whatever else (including the Book of Joseph). dD Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles are too often correct to be accidental, as I have frequently pointed out on this board. Edited November 25, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 3
CA Steve Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 cC The Hor Breathing Text is an Egyptian document. However, the discussion on this board a couple years ago is helpful, especially SA Steve, post #50, at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58970-robert-k-ritners-the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-a-complete-edition/page__st__40 . There is plenty of room on the Hor Breathing Text for the Book of Abraham, and whatever else (including the Book of Joseph). Hi Robert, I think you meant CA Steve. Either way, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that there is plenty of room on the Hor scroll for the text of the Book of Abraham and I do not understand how you can assert that it would have room for "whatever else" without even knowing what that might entail. Also I do not understand why you include the Book of Joseph as what may be missing from the Hor scroll. Don't contemporary descriptions place the Book of Joseph on the second scroll, the one that contains the Book of the Dead for Ta-Sherit-Min?While I do not want to revisit the scroll length discussion, I do accept the conclusions of Ritner, Smith and Cook as to the length of the Hor scroll at about 150-155 cm (about 5'-0") and the main missing portion to be about 60 cm (or about 2'-0"). Lengths that were predicted by Klaus Baer also. See here for Cook & Smith's first article on the length of the Hor scrollhttps://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf See here for Gee's Fair presentation response to Cook and Smith's article above.http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-book-of-abraham-i-presume (I would like to point out that in Gee's article above he accuses Cook and Smith of math errors without actually showing the math and the errors. How is it possible to verify Gee's claim of math errors when he did not provide them?) And for Cook & Smith's rebuttal to Gee's Fair presentation see.https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf Whether or not one agrees with Cook & Smith the math is there to verify. In Gee's case all we got was charts.
mfbukowski Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 aA is a false assumption by Bill Reel and those he is following: In my lengthy BofA Commentary (forthcoming) I point out that "it is crucial to note that virtually all of the so-called 'Instructions' (e.g., of Ptaotep, of Hardjedef, of Amenemope, to Merikareʿ, to Kagemni, et al.) are 'preserved in papyrus copies of later times.' Such texts were usually revised and the language updated to make them comprehensible to later readers. However, some of the texts – the 'Exorcism of ʿЗpp,' the 'Shabaku Stone,' etc. – remain in very archaic language, though preserved only in copies up to two thousand years later, and H. W. Fairman writes about a ritual dramatic text of ca. 110 B.C. going back to the First Dynasty. In view of the late date and genre of the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri, some have unfairly questioned the possibility of very archaic texts being recopied and placed with or attached to these late documents. Yet, as A. Szczudlowska’s study makes clear, during New Kingdom and even Roman times, texts of the Old Kingdom were recopied and attached to copies of the Book of the Dead spells, e.g., BD 112, 128, 178, etc. Pyramid Texts were even copied on coffin lids in the Saitic period and later. Miriam Lichtheim provides another example in noting that the hieroglyphic Book of the Dead Papyrus of Tentruty (Papyrus Berlin 3008 of the Ptolemaic period) contained a hieratic appendix of “The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,” which was 'adapted to the use of an individual person.' Ed Ashment correctly makes the point that Egyptian Magical Papyrus 8.8, which contains the name Abraham (ABRAHME/ ABRACAM), 'seems to have been used as a magical representational device in connection with certain magical spells.' In another case, found in 1896 in the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were three magical papyri 'which were written on the back of old military dispatches.' Indeed, 'John Gee estimates that about 40% of known Sensen texts have other texts attached to them.' Just so, papyri were applied to a variety of contexts, and were simply reused when necessary!" Thus, a Book of Abraham text being copied onto the same papyrus containing the Hor Breathing Text would be in line with standard Egyptology. bB Standard Egyptian symbols can be reinterpreted by Semites and others. For example, within Egypt the winged sun-disk is always the sun-god Re. Yet the God of Abraham is termed the “Sun” in Psalm 84:11, and Malachi 4:2. Moreover, outside Egypt, winged sun-disks were everywhere the symbol of Semitic ʼEl, the head of pantheon for both Israelites and Canaanites. It must emphasized as well that iconography differs from one people to another, and the reading of illustrations depends as much on the drawings as on the written texts. cC The Hor Breathing Text is an Egyptian document. However, the discussion on this board a couple years ago is helpful, especially SA Steve, post #50, at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58970-robert-k-ritners-the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-a-complete-edition/page__st__40 . There is plenty of room on the Hor Breathing Text for the Book of Abraham, and whatever else (including the Book of Joseph). dD Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles are too often correct to be accidental, as I have frequently pointed out on this board.Rather amazing actually!
Scott Lloyd Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 Rather amazing actually!Really, there is so much ambiguity in this thing it seems foolish to pin one's doubts about or rejection of the Church on unknowns and uncertainties pertaining to how the Book of Abraham came about. There is no slam dunk either way. After all the discussion, we come back to square one: Either Joseph Smith received revelation of scripture by the gift and power of God or he didn't. At present, the only way to ascertain that is to seek and receive an individual spiritual witness. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 24, 2014 Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Really, there is so much ambiguity in this thing it seems foolish to pin one's doubts about or rejection of the Church on unknowns and uncertainties pertaining to how the Book of Abraham came about. There is no slam dunk either way. After all the discussion, we come back to square one: Either Joseph Smith received revelation of scripture by the gift and power of God or he didn't. At present, the only way to ascertain that is to seek and receive an individual spiritual witness.Well for me there are two ways of seeing this and both are fine either way. Way number one is we can study all the details, way number two is go by the spirit alone. I tend to do the latter because imo ultimately the former does not prove the spiritual reality of any of it and my math is too bad to figure out the square centimeters of the scrolls. As far as I am concerned, if tomorrow they opened up an unopened tomb and found the exact translation of what we call in English the Book of Abraham, written in Egyptian and undisputably an authentic document. it would not change my testimony of the BOA one iota. This is an extreme example of a view I could also endorse, written by Wittgenstein: Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For 'consciousness of sin' is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it. Ludwig WittgensteinCulture and Value, p 28eTranslated by Peter WinchChicago, University of Chircago Press, 1980 That could be right, or the other view presented here could be right. I prefer to hold the religious belief that the BOA, BOM, the Bible and all the other Standard Works are historically accurate, but that itself is a religious belief. But honestly I am ok with it in any of these ways The bottom line for me is that I KNOW that God wants me on this path, because he has told me so. So here I am, simpleminded cuss that I am. Edited November 24, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Hi Robert, I think you meant CA Steve.Sorry about that. My intentions were good. Either way, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that there is plenty of room on the Hor scroll for the text of the Book of Abraham and I do not understand how you can assert that it would have room for "whatever else" without even knowing what that might entail. Also I do not understand why you include the Book of Joseph as what may be missing from the Hor scroll. Don't contemporary descriptions place the Book of Joseph on the second scroll, the one that contains the Book of the Dead for Ta-Sherit-Min?While I do not want to revisit the scroll length discussion, I do accept the conclusions of Ritner, Smith and Cook as to the length of the Hor scroll at about 150-155 cm (about 5'-0") and the main missing portion to be about 60 cm (or about 2'-0"). Lengths that were predicted by Klaus Baer also.And Mike Rhodes. See here for Cook & Smith's first article on the length of the Hor scrollhttps://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf See here for Gee's Fair presentation response to Cook and Smith's article above.http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-book-of-abraham-i-presume (I would like to point out that in Gee's article above he accuses Cook and Smith of math errors without actually showing the math and the errors. How is it possible to verify Gee's claim of math errors when he did not provide them?) And for Cook & Smith's rebuttal to Gee's Fair presentation see.https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/V45N03_122.pdf Whether or not one agrees with Cook & Smith the math is there to verify. In Gee's case all we got was charts.So, Steve, I take it that means that you reject the quote you gave from Gee (7 versus 217 windings, which would require a 53 micron thickness, which is impossible), right? Otherwise the math is beyond me, and perhaps most of us on this board. "For the scroll of Hor, the initial winding is 9.7cm, the last winding is 9.5 cm and there are 7 windings in total." Is Gee giving us only the Breathing Text, and not any additional windings? He does, after all, calculate the length of the Hor Breathing Text at 314 cm (10' 3.5"), give or take, which is double these other estimates. We might, therefore, want to compare that with the ancient Egyptian narrative “Tale of Sinuhe,” which consisted of over 311 lines of hieratic Egyptian rendered in 9 pages of English translation by Miriam Lichtheim = about 36 lines of hieratic per English page. At 36 lines of hieratic per page of English translation, we could thus estimate a requirement for the Book of Abraham (exclusive of illustrations) at about 11 pages of English text = 396 lines of hieratic text. If copied on both front and back of the papyrus, this would reduce the length figures by half. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, for example, has 469 total lines of hieratic, front and back, in 17 pages of papyrus – which was 4.68 m long (468 cm). Since there were 377 lines on the front, that gives about 22 lines of hieratic per papyrus page on the front. This would also give about .275 m (27.5 cm) of length of papyrus per page. Does this make any sense, Steve?
mfbukowski Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Tsk Tsk...... Forgot to carry the 1 ! Anytime you guys need some help just let me know so I can set you straight. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Sorry about that. My intentions were good. And Mike Rhodes. So, Steve, I take it that means that you reject the quote you gave from Gee (7 versus 217 windings, which would require a 53 micron thickness, which is impossible), right? Otherwise the math is beyond me, and perhaps most of us on this board. "For the scroll of Hor, the initial winding is 9.7cm, the last winding is 9.5 cm and there are 7 windings in total." Is Gee giving us only the Breathing Text, and not any additional windings? He does, after all, calculate the length of the Hor Breathing Text at 314 cm (10' 3.5"), give or take, which is double these other estimates. We might, therefore, want to compare that with the ancient Egyptian narrative “Tale of Sinuhe,” which consisted of over 311 lines of hieratic Egyptian rendered in 9 pages of English translation by Miriam Lichtheim = about 36 lines of hieratic per English page. At 36 lines of hieratic per page of English translation, we could thus estimate a requirement for the Book of Abraham (exclusive of illustrations) at about 11 pages of English text = 396 lines of hieratic text. If copied on both front and back of the papyrus, this would reduce the length figures by half. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, for example, has 469 total lines of hieratic, front and back, in 17 pages of papyrus – which was 4.68 m long (468 cm). Since there were 377 lines on the front, that gives about 22 lines of hieratic per papyrus page on the front. This would also give about .275 m (27.5 cm) of length of papyrus per page. Does this make any sense, Steve?First, Mr. Gee as far as I know still claims the length of just the missing papyrus to be 41 feet. This is still cited on the FairMormon wiki. The 314 cm comes from John Gee attempting to use Smith's and Cooks formula after he "fixed it." Second the math isn't really that complicated. The Hoffman formula is straight forward and simple to use. The complicated part is measuring the scrolls and getting the winding lengths. John Gee for his part, has not shown how he got his winding measurements (the "For the scroll of Hor, the initial winding is 9.7cm, the last winding is 9.5 cm and there are 7 windings in total.") So Gee hasn't shown how he got the measurements or his math, and his measurements give absurd results (physically impossible thickness, order of magnitude different from other known scrolls). Smith and Cook on the other hand have shown their work. Where the math gets complicated is that Smith and Cook used a complex algorithm to analyze the lacunae in the papyrus to get their winding lengths. They published all their work including scans and traces of the papyrus. You can ignore their novel formula and plug their winding lengths into the Hoffman formula and get the same results. The length predicted by Smith and Cook coincides with the predicted length of the scroll made by non Mormon Egyptian scholars based on the expected content of the book of breathings. John Gee's response to this paper is embarrassing. To my knowledge there has been no credible work put forth by Mormon apologists to dispute the work of Smith and Cook. (Credible to me means at a bare minimum your results are physically possible and you show your work). William Schryver promised years ago he was close to publishing a paper, but I haven't seen anything. Edited November 25, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Robert F. Smith Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 First, Mr. Gee as far as I know still claims the length of just the missing papyrus to be 41 feet. This is still cited on the FairMormon wiki. The 314 cm comes from John Gee attempting to use Smith's and Cooks formula after he "fixed it."As far as I know, Gee did not write the FAIRMORMON Wiki entry, which you probably know is outdated -- as you admit by citing Gee's later critique of Smith & Cook by using their and the Hoffmann formulas, which get the same basic results. Second the math isn't really that complicated. The Hoffman formula is straight forward and simple to use. The complicated part is measuring the scrolls and getting the winding lengths. John Gee for his part, has not shown how he got his winding measurements (the "For the scroll of Hor, the initial winding is 9.7cm, the last winding is 9.5 cm and there are 7 windings in total.") So Gee hasn't shown how he got the measurements or his math, and his measurements give absurd results (physically impossible thickness, order of magnitude different from other known scrolls).The math may seem simple to a mathematician, which is why I appreciate your and CA Steve's clarifications. Smith and Cook on the other hand have shown their work. Where the math gets complicated is that Smith and Cook used a complex algorithm to analyze the lacunae in the papyrus to get their winding lengths. They published all their work including scans and traces of the papyrus. You can ignore their novel formula and plug their winding lengths into the Hoffman formula and get the same results. The length predicted by Smith and Cook coincides with the predicted length of the scroll made by non Mormon Egyptian scholars based on the expected content of the book of breathings. John Gee's response to this paper is embarrassing.I see that you excluded Mike Rhodes' estimate, as did Steve, perhaps because Rhodes is Mormon? Otherwise, I agree with the need for detailed demonstrations. To my knowledge there has been no credible work put forth by Mormon apologists to dispute the work of Smith and Cook. (Credible to me means at a bare minimum your results are physically possible and you show your work). William Schryver promised years ago he was close to publishing a paper, but I haven't seen anything. Yes, I agree that we need to see more along these lines, not necessarily to dispute with anyone, but to throw light on the matter.
Calm Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Gee did not write the FAIRMORMON Wiki entry He did not. Any suggestions for updating would be appreciated so anyone should feel free to write to Fairmormon and point out where corrections need to be made. There is so much in the wiki and those editing it are always trying to address any new stuff that is asked of us that some of the older stuff gets neglected.
SamIam Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 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 Bill - there is a principle that is developed very well in the book by Joe Sampson, "Written By the Finger of God," that addresses translation from symbolic scripts. It is a take it or leave it proposition but opens possibilities. As Joe was a Lay member his writing is given short shrift by academics but that shouldn't deter you.
CA Steve Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Sorry about that. My intentions were good. And Mike Rhodes. So, Steve, I take it that means that you reject the quote you gave from Gee (7 versus 217 windings, which would require a 53 micron thickness, which is impossible), right? Otherwise the math is beyond me, and perhaps most of us on this board. "For the scroll of Hor, the initial winding is 9.7cm, the last winding is 9.5 cm and there are 7 windings in total." Is Gee giving us only the Breathing Text, and not any additional windings? He does, after all, calculate the length of the Hor Breathing Text at 314 cm (10' 3.5"), give or take, which is double these other estimates. We might, therefore, want to compare that with the ancient Egyptian narrative “Tale of Sinuhe,” which consisted of over 311 lines of hieratic Egyptian rendered in 9 pages of English translation by Miriam Lichtheim = about 36 lines of hieratic per English page. At 36 lines of hieratic per page of English translation, we could thus estimate a requirement for the Book of Abraham (exclusive of illustrations) at about 11 pages of English text = 396 lines of hieratic text. If copied on both front and back of the papyrus, this would reduce the length figures by half. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, for example, has 469 total lines of hieratic, front and back, in 17 pages of papyrus – which was 4.68 m long (468 cm). Since there were 377 lines on the front, that gives about 22 lines of hieratic per papyrus page on the front. This would also give about .275 m (27.5 cm) of length of papyrus per page. Does this make any sense, Steve?Hi Robert, You always make sense, much better than I usually do, I am afraid. I assumed you meant me and thought if you did the 'SA' was just a typo and nothing else. I was surprised to see you quote me on this, but thanks for your kind words. I was unaware of Rhodes having provided an estimate of the Hor scroll length and would love to add that to my notes. This isn't a CFR per se, but can you point me toward his work on that so I can include it? I suspect it is in his The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary - a book that I have always wanted to get but didn't want to pay the $60.00-$80.00.http://www.amazon.com/Hor-Book-Breathings-Translation-Commentary/dp/0934893632/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417019417&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+rhodes+Book+of+abraham Like I said, I would prefer not to revisit the length discussion too much, especially the math part, but I stand by what I wrote in your link above. I will try and give what answers I can from memory. The 7 windings are extant and the 217 are the number required to get the missing 1250.5 cm predicted by Gee here http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/1/S00009-5176a4d94ae9e10Gee.pdf at the bottom of page 121. As I look back I realize 41' isn't the overall length of the scroll Gee is predicting, just the missing portion so we would need to add in the extant lengths to get an overall length of around 44' predicted by Gee. Is it impossible to have a papyrus scroll measuring 40' in length that measures 1 1/4" dia rolled up? I don't know and certainly Gee would be better able to tell us if he had looked around to find the most well preserved scroll on the thinnest papyrus found, and rolled up in the tightest scroll possible eliminating nearly all white space (that's the empty space taken up in a roll between the actual medium-so for example in a toilet paper roll there is a lot or white space while in the old adding machine white tape rolls, there is very little) so that actually bears very little in common with the condition of the Hor scroll. The question isn't so much is it impossible, the question is it impossible for what we know about the Hor scroll? And in my opinion it is. Regarding Gee's Fair presentation. I am not sure that he actually retracts his prediction of 41' of missing scroll in that presentation. When I read it, it seems like he is saying that even when he uses (widely misunderstands in my opinion-as evidenced by the fact that he does not understand that the Cook & Smith formula and the Hoffmann formula are completely equivalent and yield the exact same results) Cook & Smith's formulas and corrects their math mistakes, mistakes Gee never bothers to ever present, he (Gee) comes up with 10'-4". If I am interpreting his chart correctly he still shows a length near 1200cm with his maroon line at the top of the chart, the middle line being his unexplained 'corrected' version of the Smith Cook formula and the bottom line what Smith and Cook actually predicted. Seems to me he is still promoting a 41' long scroll - a claim he restates at the beginning of the Fair presentation in this quote. Now I had applied Hoffmann’s formula to the Joseph Smith Papyri years before and sat on the results because when I used standard papyrus lengths and said well they would have been about ten feet long no one would believe me and so when I did the calculations and they came out at forty-one feet I knew no one was going to believe me on that either. And this has proven to be the case. But I’d applied it to Joseph Smith Papyrus I, X, and XI and I hadn’t applied it to the others, but when I applied it to the others the numbers came out reasonable so I said well I may as well let this go. No one complained, or has complained, as they should have, that the results for the other papyri are too short. But, as a result, Andy Cook developed a slightly different formula and he and Chris Smith applied it to one of the papyri and they’ve been loudly proclaiming that they who have never worked with papyri know more than I who have been working with papyri for a quarter of a century Regarding what other scrolls contain as a comparison to what might have been on the missing section, I do not see that as a viable comparison. How are comparisons to scrolls written of both sides even useful? I am unaware of anyone asserting that portions of the Hor scroll were on both sides. The questions are; how many feet of scroll would have to be missing to contain the Book of Abraham based on what we know of the Hor text? And, is there any indication that the missing section contained anything other than what was on the extant pieces? While you and Gee would be much better qualified to address the first question, I believe have seen estimates that about 15' would be needed for a complete Egyptian version of our current Book of Abraham based on what we know of the Hor scroll. (I do not remember where I saw that so I am willing to accept a different number.) The problem with this length (10' or 15') is that contemporary descriptions of the content of the Book of Abraham described it as being longer than what we currently have. (Anson Call & Oliver Cowdery). The actual missing portion would have to be longer than what would accommodate the current translation. And if the use of the term 'volumes" by Cowdery is to be believed, it would have to be much much longer. What was on the missing portion? As far as I know, all contemporary descriptions of what was on the Egyptian relics can be found on the extant pieces. All the loose patches can be traced to the extant pieces (see Ritner's "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri"pg 275-277) Every one of the hundreds and hundreds of copies of authentic characters or glyphs found in the KEP and the Joseph Smith plates are found on or related to the extant funerary documents. Many of these hand drawn documents were labeled "valuable discovery" by Joseph Smith and contemporaries as if they knew what they meant. So if the argument is that the missing scroll contains the Book of Abraham and Joseph was working from that portion why are all these references, loose patches, and copies of glyphs and characters which were considered important to Joseph Smith and company, only related to funerary documents? And lastly, and perhaps most importantly because it can only apply to the portion of the scroll lost in the Chicago fire, are the descriptions of the papyrus and mummies from Gustavus Seyffarth, when he viewed the artifacts in St Louis, he described them like this in the museum catalog and newspaper article: From the catalog These mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet, on account of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharoahsâ but, according to Prof. Seyffarth, the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, (Horus,) and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge, Osirus [sic]. The body of one is that of a female, about forty the other, that of a boy, about fourteen. They were kept by the Prophet's mother until her death, when the heirs sold them, and shortly after, were purchased for the Museum. and the article: It is said that these mummies were obtained in the catacombs of Egypt sixty feet below the surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, and forwarded to New York, and there purchased by Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, in 1835; and that he used them in practicing his deceptions upon the people, pretending to translate the writings or hieroglyphics found in the chest of one of them, stating that they belonged to the family of Pharaoh. I suppose this great impostor, among other things equally glaring, confirmed his prophetic authority by alleging this papyrus roll to contain a commission to him from Pharaoh. By this, or some other mysterious power, he evidently holds in strange captivity many deluded people who groan to be delivered from bondage. Prof. Seyffarth says this writing contains an invocation to the Deity Osirus, in which occurs the name of the person, which is Horus.St. Louis Christian Advocate - Sep 10, 1857 If the lost funerary documents in the museum had more than the Book of Breathings (and has been estimated by others, a lot more) why do the descriptions that Seyffarth gave only match what we would expect to see on what we actually know about the document, including facsimile#3? When all this is taken together, length estimates by Baer, Ritner, Smith & Cook, and Rhodes (thanks!), contemporary descriptions of the documents, and the extant pieces, I think it adds up to about 24" of missing scroll between JSX and Facsimile#3 and a couple of missing inches between JSXI and JSX. Thanks Edited November 26, 2014 by CA Steve 1
Recommended Posts