Proofs of the Book of Abraham?

[Paul Osborne]

My interest is to see just how impressive was Joseph's draw upon the "ideational lexicon" and "phonemic soup" of his day, in order to, as you suppose, naturalistically compose the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Then you'll no doubt enjoy my BoAbr anthology.

Brent,

I hope your work is complete, balanced, and fair which is something I have yet to see from critical reports about the BofA. Are you going to anticipate the option that the church may officially slip into a catalyst theory and embrace ideas not typical to current apologia?

I do hope you have something to say about the Egyptian Counting system devised by the prophet, although it is somewhat incomplete and jumbled in its hasty presentation

[King Folly]

So far no one has responded to my presentation about the Egyptian Counting System and I find that to be disappointing.

Not wanting to disappoint, here's my opinion.

Last night I was watching a show where the good guys were trying to catch some kidnappers and all they had was a grainy image of a truck taken from a street camera. So what they did was apply successive filtering and error correction to magically increase the resolution of the image until they were able to clearly (1) see into the backseat of the truck, (2) recognize the kidnapped kid, (3) see that a gun was being pointed at the kid, and (4) clearly see the license plate. Amazingly enough, each successive "zoom-in" showed more and more and more resolution!

This isn't the first time I've seen this technique performed in TV shows and movies--not by a long shot. Of course, since software engineering and algorithms is something I have knowledge of, I always get a good laugh: makes for great drama but it's not real.

My reaction to the so-called First through Fifth degrees of meaning is very similar.

--KY

[wenglund]

My interest is to see just how impressive was Joseph's draw upon the "ideational lexicon" and "phonemic soup" of his day, in order to, as you suppose, naturalistically compose the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Then you'll no doubt enjoy my BoAbr anthology.

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Osborne]

My reaction to the so-called First through Fifth degrees of meaning is very similar.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

My interest is to see just how impressive was Joseph's draw upon the "ideational lexicon" and "phonemic soup" of his day, in order to, as you suppose, naturalistically compose the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Then you'll no doubt enjoy my BoAbr anthology.

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Often my experience in talking with fellow LDS is that they tend to base their stand on what they don

[SOMIB]

How do you know that the Grammar and Alphabet was Joseph Smith's?

Edited on Jan 29 to change "pages 4 and 5" to "pages 2 and 3".

H. Michael Marquardt reproduces, on pages 2 and 3 of his compendium “The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers”, a number of statements, where Joseph Smith indicates that he worked on the Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar, or translated the Egyptian records. These statements are from the LDS History of the Church. In some cases, they also appear in the Diary of Joseph Smith.

Furthermore, there are some parts of the A&G in Joseph Smith’s handwriting (according to Marquardt’s compendium and page 4 of Hugh Nibley’s “The Meaning of The Kirtland Egyptian Papers”).

[Paul Osborne]

How do you know that the Grammar and Alphabet was Joseph Smith's?

H. Michael Marquardt reproduces, on pages 4 and 5 of his compendium

[SOMIB]

In my previous post, I indicated that Marquardt’s compendium has information about Joseph Smith’s participation in the Alphabet and Grammar. After posting, I found that the portion of Marquardt I referenced is online. This post contains the link to Marquardt ( http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/books2.htm) and the following , copied from the online information:

There are three references in the LDS History of the Church (cited hereafter as DHC) for the year 1835 which mentions the Grammar and Alphabet. They are as follows:

1. "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." (DHC Vol. 2:238 for July 1835; written in the year 1843)

2. "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps: the System of astronomy was unfolded." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 1, 1835, p.3; also in DHC Vol. 2:286)

In 1843 the diary notation was expanded adding: "and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter." ("Manuscript History of the Church," Book B-1, p. 622; also DHC Vol. 2:286)

3. "exhibited the alphabet of the ancient records to Mr Holmes and some others" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 17, 1835, p. 45; DHC Vol. 2:316)

It is interesting that on October 1, 1835 Joseph Smith mentioned his scribes - Oliver Cowdery and William W. Phelps. Oliver Cowdery's handwriting does not appear in the bound Grammar and Alphabet but he wrote Egyptian MS. No. 5 and his handwriting appears on a page of Joseph Smith's Egyptian MS. No. 4 and in one small notebook (Egyptian MS. No. 6). The other scribe William W. Phelps wrote most of the Grammar and Alphabet (Egyptian MS. No.1), Egyptian MS. No. 2, Egyptian MS. No. 3 and Egyptian MS. No. 7. William W. Phelps' handwriting also appears on Translation Manuscript No.1 (first half of page 1) and Translation Manuscript No. 2 of the Book of Abraham. These two scribes wrote for Joseph Smith soon after the mummies and papyri were purchased. Significantly the DHC records the following:

". . . with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics. . . ." (DHC 2:236 for July 1835; written in 1843; italics mine)

There is also one mention of translating in October 1835 as follows:

"this afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 7, 1835, p. 7; also in DHC 2:289)

Warren Parrish was appointed a scribe to Joseph Smith on October 29, 1835 as the following from the Diary of Joseph Smith makes explicit under that date:

"Br Parish commenced writing for me at $15.00 pr month" (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 29, 1835, p. 10; also DHC 2:293)

On November 14, 1835 the calling of Warren Parrish as scribe was mentioned in a revelation to Joseph Smith which stated in part:

". . . he shall see much of my ancient records . . . . he shall be privileged with writing much of my word, as a scribe unto me for the benefit of my people, therefore this shall be his calling until I shall order it otherwise in my wisdom and it shall be said of him in a time to come behold Warren the Lords Scribe, for the Lords Seer. . . ." (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 14, 1835, p. 36; also DHC 2:311)

This reference places Warren Parrish as scribe to Joseph Smith in 1835 when the translation of the Egyptian records was taking place. Warren Parrish's handwriting appears on Translation Manuscript No. 1 (last half of page 1 to page 10), Translation Manuscript No. 3 of the Book of Abraham and also in part of the bound Grammar and Alphabet.

Both William W. Phelps and Warren Parrish were working together in Kirtland, Ohio, in the month of November 1835, as scribes for Joseph Smith. It was during this month that the references to translating the Egyptian records are recorded in the Diary of Joseph Smith. The following are the dates which state that the Egyptian records were being translated:

1. "I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 19, 1835, p. 47; also DHC 2:318)

2. "we spent the day in translating, and made rapid progress" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 20, 1835, p. 47; also DHC 2:3l8)

3. "in the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 24, 1835, p. 49; also DHC 2:320)

4. "Spent the day in Translating." (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 25, 1835, p. 50; also DHC 2:320)

[noel00]

All of this shows that Smith was involved in so much twaddle. Some Egyptian callled Hor has achieved some kind of immortality in that the material that was meant for his burial etc has become centuries later the subject of so much comment. These entries show that the "still missing" theory is cactus. All you have left is the "inspired" theory and that he made it up..The usual response by Lds is that there things within the book that have been supported by other sources that Smith could not have known about.. And now Brent has/is showing us that such material was avaiilable.

[Dale]

Hi,

I don't see the stuff as twaddle myself. Some of it is speculative. The parts that Paul Osbourne believes was used in translation should be treated with more respect. Some doubt the above references prove anything against the Book of Abraham. Brent if you are referring to Brent Metcalf I feel he is a bit rigid & overbearing in the presentation of his positions on the Book of Abraham. Without comparing Brent's statements to the Traditions About The Early Life of Abraham I can't trust his assertion. Do you have a link?

Sincerely,

Dale

[exegete]

Hi Wade,

Let me clarify a few points.

Wouldn't one then expect, if the hypothesis held true, that the Book of Abraham would reflect a "soft Universalism?"

No. If the BoAbr articulated a salvific model, then perhaps

[exegete]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your inquiry.

I hope your work is complete, balanced, and fair which is something I have yet to see from critical reports about the BofA. Are you going to anticipate the option that the church may officially slip into a catalyst theory and embrace ideas not typical to current apologia?

Scholars in my BoAbr anthology rigorously examine BoAbr origins from the purview of various disciplines. Analyzing the papyri, 19thC manuscripts, and BoAbr narrative is primary; countering apologetics is relatively tangential and often relegated to footnotes.

I do hope you have something to say about the Egyptian Counting system devised by the prophet, although it is somewhat incomplete and jumbled in its hasty presentation

[Paul Osborne]

Yes, the "Egyptian Counting" manuscript is included. You're correct in connecting mathematics in the EC with terms in Joseph's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar project (some of which end up in the figure explanations for Facsimile 2). Although you and I view the BoAbr in fundamentally different ways, I agree with you that numerous patterns emerge from Smith's manuscripts

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

What, you don

[Paul Osborne]

Scholars in my BoAbr anthology rigorously examine BoAbr origins from the purview of various disciplines. Analyzing the papyri, 19thC manuscripts, and BoAbr narrative is primary; countering apologetics is relatively tangential and often relegated to footnotes.

Brent,

How do YOU regard the ancient signs for the sun, moon, and earth being placed in the EA&G manuscript to compliment the papyrus? Will your presentation feature this inclusion? If yes, do you feel you will be able to hold up to my own presentation which is yet to be released? Just how thorough do you think your work will be, Brent?

See here and scroll down:

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id515.htm

Paul O

[Dale]

Hi,

My big complaint about FARMs is that the only persons publishing hard stuff on the EAG is people critical of the Book of Abraham, & defenders of it like Paul Osbourne. The summary response is unsatisfying to us who want a case laid out in front of our eyes. The Book of Abraham projects book is difficult to wade through. Yet I can by By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson for cheap. I got mine for free almost from IRR. It may be 2005 or later before John Gee gets his big book out. His guide isn't very useful in debating people hit by the Tanners or charles Larsons book. Perhaps if Signature Books gets out a book FARMS will see a need to release something tough on the EAG.

I buy anthing interesting on Book of Mormon Historicity, ect that Signature Book's publishes. While not a scholar I can generally understand the issues. But with FARMS when it comes to the EAG they tend to repeat talking points rather than get down to publishing a whole case. A few hard hitting essays perhaps one replying to Ed Ashment would be nice. FARMs is releasing a new Studies in the Book of Abraham series but nothing from John Gee further explaining the issues & position he advocated in his small guide. I feel they are putting off what should be published now. Atleast then I could compare his case with that of his critics more fully.

What do you folks see as problems with positions held by Michael Rhodes, John Gee presentations that FAIR ,or FARMS has released?

Sincerely,

Dale

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Let me clarify a few points.

Wouldn't one then expect, if the hypothesis held true, that the Book of Abraham would reflect a "soft Universalism?"

No. If the BoAbr articulated a salvific model, then perhaps

[wenglund]

Wade,

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

What, you don

[Paul Osborne]

Dale,

As you know, I don

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

What, you don

[William the Conqueror]

You are attempting to limit all scholarship to

[exegete]

Hi Paul,

My forthcoming BoAbr anthology is thorough, but certainly not exhaustive in the sense that every possible BoAbr issue is analyzed in painstaking, minute detail. In any event, I think you'll be pleased with the result.

On the characters for the Earth, sun, and moon, I do plan on identifying (where possible) the sources for each of the characters in the manuscripts (some, of course, are invented characters). Those particular three characters never struck me as too astonishing since the one looks like an iconic representation of the four-quartered Earth, another the phased moon, and the other a solid dot for the sun (perhaps depicting an eclipse

[SOMIB]

What do you folks see as problems with positions held by Michael Rhodes, John Gee presentations that FAIR ,or FARMS has released?

The prime problems with the apologetic positions in defending the Book of Abraham (BoA) are erroneous statements, ignoring evidence, and not answering problems noted by critics.

The LDS church has not released complete photocopies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. This includes the Alphabet & Grammar and the BoA manuscripts. This is necessary to follow some of the apologists’ and critics’ arguments. This material was published in black and white by non-LDS sources . I have found H. Michael Marquardt’s compendium, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers (may be out of print), very useful.

Examples of erroneous statements and/or not answering problems pointed out by critics are:

1. Hugh Nibley misquoted or erroneously copied lines from BoA Manuscript 1 (Metcalfe calls this #2 because it was written after two earlier BoA manuscripts he calls 1A and 1B). See “Nibley’s Illusory Variants” in Metcalfe’s mormonscripturestudies.com. As far as I know, no apologetic source has retracted or corrected Nibley’s publication.

2. On page 22 of his booklet, “A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri”, John Gee states that Egyptian characters run over the English text (example 1). Examining this example in a better reproduction shows it does not run over. This was pointed out on the ZLMB forum. Gee replied by stating that by “run over” he did not mean “overwrite.” This is a very dubious explanation of a misleading statement. Hopefully, this will not be repeated in future writings by Gee.

Some items that are being ignored or glossed over are:

1. Rhodes and Gee discuss Facsimile 2 without noting that damaged or missing areas were filled in by copying text or figures from other portions of the papyri or by the artist's creativity/inspiration.

2. I have not seen any explanations for some of Joseph Smith’s translation errors on the facsimiles. In particular, JS states that figure 5 of Facsimile 3 is “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters over his head.” Egyptologists have translated these characters as Horus,

[Paul Osborne]

Hi Paul,

My forthcoming BoAbr anthology is thorough, but certainly not exhaustive in the sense that every possible BoAbr issue is analyzed in painstaking, minute detail. In any event, I think you'll be pleased with the result.

On the characters for the Earth, sun, and moon, I do plan on identifying (where possible) the sources for each of the characters in the manuscripts (some, of course, are invented characters). Those particular three characters never struck me as too astonishing since the one looks like an iconic representation of the four-quartered Earth, another the phased moon, and the other a solid dot for the sun (perhaps depicting an eclipse

[wenglund]

Wade,

I will be curious to learn what proportion of your anthology consists of hard or direct evidence of BoA origins (such as, Joseph said such and such about the translation...; or, there is this piece of empiriacl evidence for such and such) as opposed to layers built upon layers of hypothetical possibilities-i.e. ad hoc hypotheses (such as, Joseph could have known such and such, and thus he could be the author of such and such passages; or, such and such words have phonemic similarities, and thus Joseph could have "invented" them--or, as some would more emphatically say, "Joseph invented them"). ;-)

What, you don