cinepro Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 As has been discussed many times here, defenders of The Book of Abraham seem to have settled on two possible explanations for its origin (in light of the now-obvious fact that it isn't a direct translation of the Egyptian on the existing papyri). One is the "missing papyrus" theory, based on the idea that it is an actual translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith had in 1835, but was since lost. The second theory is the "catalyst" theory. This is the idea that Joseph Smith looked at the Egyptian on the papyri, and while doing so God inspired him with the text of The Book of Abraham. It could also be theorized that this text is an actual translation of another ancient document which we have never seen, but that isn't necessary to the theory. William Hamblin explains this theory thusly: 1- The BOA as we have it in the PGP was not found anywhere on any of the JS papyri, surviving or lost. 2- JS received the papyri, became interested in Abraham, etc., and 3- Thereupon received a unique revelation from God of the translation of an ancient authentic Abraham document = our Book of Abraham. Now, I have a question for those who support the Catalyst Theory. In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says: 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record. How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean? Specifically, the papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at while he dictated this portion had a picture of someone laying on an altar, with someone else standing over them. Joseph Smith then went on to explain that this picture represents the story being told in Abarham chapter 1. Then, this picture and its attendant description from Joseph Smith were canonized and placed in our scriptures as Facsimile 1. So again, how would it be possible for Joseph Smith to be receiving The Book of Abraham via inspiration (and not from direct translation from the papyri), while at the same time directly referencing the picture that is on the papyri?!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says: This has been discussed before to some extent. Some have said that the specific portion was added later and that JS never said or translated/ received revelation for that. I recall a thread that I believe Will Schryver argued that with Metcalf and Smith. It has been a while Ill need to see if I can find it.
DragonLancer Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 As has been discussed many times here, defenders of The Book of Abraham seem to have settled on two possible explanations for its origin (in light of the now-obvious fact that it isn't a direct translation of the Egyptian on the existing papyri). One is the "missing papyrus" theory, based on the idea that it is an actual translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith had in 1835, but was since lost. The second theory is the "catalyst" theory. This is the idea that Joseph Smith looked at the Egyptian on the papyri, and while doing so God inspired him with the text of The Book of Abraham. It could also be theorized that this text is an actual translation of another ancient document which we have never seen, but that isn't necessary to the theory. William Hamblin explains this theory thusly: Now, I have a question for those who support the Catalyst Theory. In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says: How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean? Specifically, the papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at while he dictated this portion had a picture of someone laying on an altar, with someone else standing over them. Joseph Smith then went on to explain that this picture represents the story being told in Abarham chapter 1. Then, this picture and its attendant description from Joseph Smith were canonized and placed in our scriptures as Facsimile 1. So again, how would it be possible for Joseph Smith to be receiving The Book of Abraham via inspiration (and not from direct translation from the papyri), while at the same time directly referencing the picture that is on the papyri?! No doubt some sort of something like a "catalyst" was happening with the papyri. However, the classic catalyst theory on its own is not all that great to explain things like this, and a theory that would explain it better is one that employs some kind of Iconotropy/Adaptation of figures as one of its core principles. A number of theories out there do this, including Kevin Barney's Semitic adaptation theory. In the minds of some ancient person, these pictures had something to do with Abraham. Perhaps, the figure of Osiris was transformed into a symbol serviceable to represent Abraham in someone's mind anciently, as many have suggested, including Kevin Barney. That is a better explanation than the pure catalyst theory. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 No doubt some sort of something like a "catalyst" was happening with the papyri. However, the classic catalyst theory on its own is not all that great to explain things like this, and a theory that would explain it better is one that employs some kind of Iconotropy/Adaptation of figures as one of its core principles. A number of theories out there do this, including Kevin Barney's Semitic adaptation theory. In the minds of some ancient person, these pictures had something to do with Abraham. Perhaps, the figure of Osiris was transformed into a symbol serviceable to represent Abraham in someone's mind anciently, as many have suggested, including Kevin Barney. That is a better explanation than the pure catalyst theory.I have thought some what along these lines. Now, the theory on it's own is not bad. But is there any real world evidence that backs this up. I realize that a lack of evidence is not proof it didn't happen. Just that it would be nice to have hard evidence to support this.
Ferdinand55 Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 This has been discussed before to some extent. Some have said that the specific portion was added later and that JS never said or translated/ received revelation for that. I recall a thread that I believe Will Schryver argued that with Metcalf and Smith. It has been a while Ill need to see if I can find it. Wasn't the Book of Abraham also translated differently than the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon simply showed up on the seer stone, but didn't the Book of Abraham require Joseph to do a lot more studying in his mind?
cinepro Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 No doubt some sort of something like a "catalyst" was happening with the papyri. However, the classic catalyst theory on its own is not all that great to explain things like this, and a theory that would explain it better is one that employs some kind of Iconotropy/Adaptation of figures as one of its core principles. A number of theories out there do this, including Kevin Barney's Semitic adaptation theory. In the minds of some ancient person, these pictures had something to do with Abraham. Perhaps, the figure of Osiris was transformed into a symbol serviceable to represent Abraham in someone's mind anciently, as many have suggested, including Kevin Barney. That is a better explanation than the pure catalyst theory. I'm not getting what you're saying. Assuming there is some original Book of Abraham (written by Abraham ~2000 BC), are you saying he had the same picture as Facsimile 1 in his book? And then the same picture was included in the papyri from 200 BC (almost 1800 years later!) that was later found and delivered to Joseph Smith? So when Joseph was inspired to say " I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." in verse 12, he wasn't in fact referring to the picture on the scroll in front of him, but instead the same picture that was originally included by Abraham 18 centuries previous?
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record. How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean? Specifically, the papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at while he dictated this portion had a picture of someone laying on an altar, with someone else standing over them. Joseph Smith then went on to explain that this picture represents the story being told in Abarham chapter 1. Then, this picture and its attendant description from Joseph Smith were canonized and placed in our scriptures as Facsimile 1. 1st possibility Words and images do not have meaning, we create the meaning. Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by inspiration, so he simply used Facsimile 1 as an inspiration to write the explanations of the original representation that he did not have. In other words, Joseph Smith simply wrote what he received by revelation and replaced the original representation with Facsimile 1. 2nd possibility Facsimile 1 is very similar to the original representation, so that is why Joseph Smith received the inspiration, that is Natural Selection. 3rd possibility Give me some time to think of another one, I am busy. It is extremely easy find explanations, it is not extremely easy to find the evidence, but it is very easy to be creative. Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Wasn't the Book of Abraham also translated differently than the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon simply showed up on the seer stone, but didn't the Book of Abraham require Joseph to do a lot more studying in his mind?Truth be told, I am not sure what the exact differences are. Part of problem is that we really don't have all the facts on how the BoA came to be and we don't have all the facts on the BoM either. IOW, we have theories because we have holes in the story were no detail was ever given. This very thread is a testament to that in terms of 2 of the theories presented. Edited February 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) I'm not getting what you're saying. Assuming there is some original Book of Abraham (written by Abraham ~2000 BC), are you saying he had the same picture as Facsimile 1 in his book? And then the same picture was included in the papyri from 200 BC (almost 1800 years later!) that was later found and delivered to Joseph Smith? So when Joseph was inspired to say " I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." in verse 12, he wasn't in fact referring to the picture on the scroll in front of him, but instead the same picture that was originally included by Abraham 18 centuries previous? Nope, that a person from 200 BC (anciently or some ancient person) had used the imagery that he would identify, unique to him and few others that believe like him, Osiris as Abraham and so on and so forth. You will notice that DL never once said that it was Abraham writing it this way. Edited February 25, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
rongo Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I agree, cinepro. I think the catalyst theory is untenable, myself. If it works for some people, I don't have a problem with that. But, it's not something I hold up as being effective or useful in helping defend the Book of Abraham, or helping people with concerns. 1
DragonLancer Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not getting what you're saying. Assuming there is some original Book of Abraham (written by Abraham ~2000 BC), are you saying he had the same picture as Facsimile 1 in his book? And then the same picture was included in the papyri from 200 BC (almost 1800 years later!) that was later found and delivered to Joseph Smith? So when Joseph was inspired to say " I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." in verse 12, he wasn't in fact referring to the picture on the scroll in front of him, but instead the same picture that was originally included by Abraham 18 centuries previous? That's why we need the equivalent of a grand unified theory of the Book of Abraham, and of course, my opinion is that mine is precisely that. This problem of this is solved by recognizing that the Sensen Papyrus that we have with its accompanying facsimiles is a thing that is representational, and fulfills its mission by being a surrogate. It is not what Abraham wrote. What Abraham wrote was a separate document. The facsimiles approximate pictures that were probably on the document that Abraham wrote. But these are not from Abraham. The Facsimile #1 was "restored" by Joseph Smith because of the lacunae in the Sensen Papyrus. The original would not have looked like this. Similarly, Facsimile #2 was also "restored" by Joseph smith because of damaged parts of the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq. So, what we have is surrogate material as the Sensen Papyrus coupled with a restorative effort by Joseph Smith that approximates what was originally in a document that Abraham wrote. The Sensen Papyrus is Abrahamic because of how it was used, not because of what it originated as. It is a funerary document in its current form. So, there are three important facts at work here, in summary: (1) Already existing material repurposed as something Abrahamic (i.e. Kevin Barney's "Semitic Adaptation" or William Hamblin's "Iconotropy". Either term will do. Whether it was truly Semitic or not has yet to be determined, because priests of the magical papyri tradition were adapting things too, just like Jews were. The Sensen Papyrus is not Abrahamic in its origin. (Ryan Larsen's theory suggests a good alternative where it is Abrahamic in origin, but that is a separate can of worms).(2) Modern reconstruction. Joseph Smith reconstructed damaged portions so that the facsimile pictures more suitably perform their jobs as illustrations to accompany the Book of Abraham text.(3) Abraham really did write a document that was never in the hands of Joseph Smith, and this other thing is a surrogate for it.
DragonLancer Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 1st possibility Words and images do not have meaning, we create the meaning. Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by inspiration, so he simply used Facsimile 1 as an inspiration to write the explanations of the original representation that he did not have. In other words, Joseph Smith simply wrote what he received by revelation and replaced the original representation with Facsimile 1. 2nd possibility Facsimile 1 is very similar to the original representation, so that is why Joseph Smith received the inspiration, that is Natural Selection. 3rd possibility Give me some time to think of another one, I am busy. It is extremely easy find explanations, it is not extremely easy to find the evidence, but it is very easy to be creative. This is what I am talking about too. Surrogacy. The Sensen Papyrus is something that was anciently used as a representational device to represent Abrahamic themes. And in modern times, because of damage, Joseph Smith reconstructed portions to more closely fit what the original representations were. So, we have ancient repurposing coupled with modern reconstruction. This document is a surrogate for the original document that was never in the hands of Joseph Smith. Natural selection is an interesting way to put it. But in other words, it was naturally damaged (or, should I say, the hand of God damaged it in all the right places, and Joseph Smith used inspiration to bring it more closely into conformity with the original, as you say, through inspiration. Facsimile 2 is not even part of the same document, but was put with it haphazardly, through "natural selection" or by the hand of God. But Abraham's original really did contain something like a hypocephalus, or perhaps something like it, like a representation of the Mehen game with the ouroboros surrounding a representation of a seated god in the middle, perhaps. Whatever it was, it closely resembled a hypocephalus, or was an early version of a hypocephalus. Why did Joseph Smith think it was the original? Prophets can't know everything. It was still anciently repurposed, and all the evidence is going toward that view, because I demonstrate this to be so on my blog. Prophets get things line upon line, and we more closely know now what we know because of Egyptology. The truth will be somewhere in the middle between the two extremes of what Joseph Smith thought, and what Egyptology shows. Joseph Smith thought he had the original. Egyptology says it is not the original. The truth is in the middle, a marriage between extremes. It is not the original, but it is repurposed to be Abrahamic. Therefore, Joseph Smith was right in his estimation that it was Abrahamic, and the Egyptologists are right that it is a funerary document. It is this plus that, giving us a strange marriage of the facts inbetween the two. The facts actually compliment each other to come to a more interesting and strange truth. They do not contradict, but they actually produce a very interesting thing that is the result of the marriage between the two extremes.
CV75 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean?Perhaps Joseph Smith’s mind’s eye was catalyzed to receive the revelation visually. Like the angel in 1 Nephi 11 kept saying "Look!" except he was viewing a "text" rather than a "panorama."
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) As has been discussed many times here, defenders of The Book of Abraham seem to have settled on two possible explanations for its origin (in light of the now-obvious fact that it isn't a direct translation of the Egyptian on the existing papyri). One is the "missing papyrus" theory, based on the idea that it is an actual translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith had in 1835, but was since lost.The second theory is the "catalyst" theory. This is the idea that Joseph Smith looked at the Egyptian on the papyri, and while doing so God inspired him with the text of The Book of Abraham. It could also be theorized that this text is an actual translation of another ancient document which we have never seen, but that isn't necessary to the theory.William Hamblin explains this theory thusly:Now, I have a question for those who support the Catalyst Theory.In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says:How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean?Specifically, the papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at while he dictated this portion had a picture of someone laying on an altar, with someone else standing over them. Joseph Smith then went on to explain that this picture represents the story being told in Abarham chapter 1. Then, this picture and its attendant description from Joseph Smith were canonized and placed in our scriptures as Facsimile 1.So again, how would it be possible for Joseph Smith to be receiving The Book of Abraham via inspiration (and not from direct translation from the papyri), while at the same time directly referencing the picture that is on the papyri?!Excellent thoughts! Perhaps such inquiry will spawn new ideas that push the BOA even farther in to the realm of "things that are conveniently not falsifiable." Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Excellent thoughts! Perhaps such inquiry will spawn new ideas that push the BOA even farther in to the realm of "things that are conveniently not falsifiable." Many arguments that the critics make are conveniently not falsifiable 1
rodheadlee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Excellent thoughts! Perhaps such inquiry will spawn new ideas that push the BOA even farther in to the realm of "things that are conveniently not falsifiable."You don't have to accept it as scripture if you don't want to bro. As for me and my house we'll just have some faith that God got it right.
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Many arguments that the critics make are conveniently not falsifiableThen their arguments aren't useful either
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Then their arguments aren't useful either Of course not, your arguments are not useful. You are an ex-mormon.
Rivers Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Cinepro said: In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says: Quote12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean? One possibiltiy is that Joseph Smith was referencing the facsimile rather than Abraham. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 You don't have to accept it as scripture if you don't want to bro. As for me and my house we'll just have some faith that God got it right.That's fine; but don't pretend that there is virtue in believing baseless ideas. Bro. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) That's fine; but don't pretend that there is virtue in believing baseless ideas. Bro. The idea is just speculation, but the LDS church is the only religion I seen that has some evidence. Edited February 25, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
SmileyMcGee Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Of course not, your arguments are not useful. You are an ex-mormon.Rejecting the catalyst theory is anti mormon? Edited February 25, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 As has been discussed many times here, defenders of The Book of Abraham seem to have settled on two possible explanations for its origin (in light of the now-obvious fact that it isn't a direct translation of the Egyptian on the existing papyri). One is the "missing papyrus" theory, based on the idea that it is an actual translation of some Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith had in 1835, but was since lost. The second theory is the "catalyst" theory. This is the idea that Joseph Smith looked at the Egyptian on the papyri, and while doing so God inspired him with the text of The Book of Abraham. It could also be theorized that this text is an actual translation of another ancient document which we have never seen, but that isn't necessary to the theory. William Hamblin explains this theory thusly: Now, I have a question for those who support the Catalyst Theory. In describing his almost-sacrifice at the hands of a priest, Abraham says: How could this verse in chapter one be received through inspiration, and what does it mean? Specifically, the papyri that Joseph Smith was looking at while he dictated this portion had a picture of someone laying on an altar, with someone else standing over them. Joseph Smith then went on to explain that this picture represents the story being told in Abarham chapter 1. Then, this picture and its attendant description from Joseph Smith were canonized and placed in our scriptures as Facsimile 1. So again, how would it be possible for Joseph Smith to be receiving The Book of Abraham via inspiration (and not from direct translation from the papyri), while at the same time directly referencing the picture that is on the papyri?!I fail to see the problem. Joseph was looking at the manuscript and thought that is what it said literally, but he was receiving revelation, not understanding that it was revelation and not a literal translation. So what?
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not getting what you're saying. Assuming there is some original Book of Abraham (written by Abraham ~2000 BC), are you saying he had the same picture as Facsimile 1 in his book? And then the same picture was included in the papyri from 200 BC (almost 1800 years later!) that was later found and delivered to Joseph Smith? So when Joseph was inspired to say " I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." in verse 12, he wasn't in fact referring to the picture on the scroll in front of him, but instead the same picture that was originally included by Abraham 18 centuries previous? The ancient book was not translated literally, it was a summary of the teachings of Abraham on religious matters. In his translation of the Bible, Joseph re-wrote full chapters that never existed in any manuscripts. Nobody bats an eyelash! This is similar. It's only a problem for strict literalists for whom everything is a problem anyway because they do not understand that historical evidence is irrelevant to religious matters. Stop worrying about this stuff- grow up and learn what amazing gospel principles there are to learn and stop worrying about where they came from. Inspiration is inspiration. God taught Joseph, and he taught us. The details are unimportant.
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 That's fine; but don't pretend that there is virtue in believing baseless ideas. Bro.I see. Shall we examine everything you take without evidence? Do you really want to go there? Why do you think scientific evidence has anything to do with religious matters? What is your scientific evidence that it is wrong to kill babies for fun? What theory proves that? What experiment? What scientific evidence do you have for believing that you love your wife?
Recommended Posts