Book of Abraham == the New View

[cdowis]

Ed Goble posts

Quote

 

While it is true that some of the ideological stances contained in Ritner's book are blatantly Anti-Mormon, Brian Haugid for one is taking most of the information and the argumentation in Ritner's book very seriously.  And Brian Hauglid is taking the charges against Kerry Muhlstien's and John Gee's type of apologetics on the Book of Abraham very seriously.

While its true that Brian Hauglid is not necessarily siding with me on the idea that I put forth that the KEP is the reproduction and transmission of ancient information, he is at least of the opinion (which is the same opinion of the critics and of myself) that there was no missing papyrus in modern times, and that Joseph Smith was absolutely responsible for the great majority of information in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Therefore, it won't do to pass off all of the contents of Ritner's work as just hit pieces, but that along with the rest of the information coming from Ed Ashment and Brent Metcalfe, and Stephen Thompson, and even *Charles Larson* needs to be taken very extremely seriously.

And so, rather than viewing Ritner, Metcalfe and company as mere hacks and hitmen, rather we should be viewing them as our colleagues that are interested in coming to the truth of the matter.  We won't agree with their ultimate conclusions on Joseph Smith's translations, but we ought to come to a consensus with them on the forensic facts of this matter.

Therefore our apologetics ought to be retooled and rooted in that eventual consensus on those facts.  And it is evident already where that consensus will eventually stand.

 

(Stating a new thread since someone was unhappy with me in the old thread and got me banned from the thread.)

Anyway, as I see it, Ed is following the path of John Tvednes and his mnemonic theory, where he is attempts to tie the EAG with the Book of the Dead, resulting in the Book of Abraham. Let's go over the basics ==>>

Let us suppose that I want to memorize the first chapter of the Gospel of John.  I would start by dividing it up into phrases and memorize each phrase.  Let's suppose that I end up with 50 phrases, but I need a systematic way of looking at those phrases.

So I have a single word which represents the entire phrase.  So, I may use "beginning" as the trigger word for that entire phrase (verse).  Then, I take all of these trigger words and make a sentence using groups of trigger words.

"Beginning today John went home after the flood" (I'm not going to give a real example) would represent eight trigger words, or eight phrases.  Tvedtnes then does something remarkable, using the EAG as a guide, he is able to give a detailed demonstration that the BOD could be the grouping of those mnemonics or trigger words which results in the "translation" of the first part of the Book of Abraham.

This gives us some interesting possibilities  This mnemonic book, over the centuries, took on a life of its own, and the original purpose, as a repository of the Book of Abraham, was lost.

I realize this leaves alot of questions and holes, but Ed seems to have resurrected this idea and gives us a new direction.

[smac97]

Quote

While its true that Brian Hauglid is not necessarily siding with me on the idea that I put forth that the KEP is the reproduction and transmission of ancient information, he is at least of the opinion (which is the same opinion of the critics and of myself) that there was no missing papyrus in modern times...

How do you account for the historical evidences which generally underlie the "Missing Papyrus" theory?  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

• Soon after the purchase of the original papyri, Joseph Smith stated that he "commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and . . . found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, 2:236). In December of that year, he said that "The Record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation" (History of the Church, 2:348). Hugh Nibley points out that the Book of Breathing text is "entirely different" from the record of Abraham described by Joseph Smith. The Book of Breathing papyri were neither beautifully written nor well preserved and were devoid of rubrics (passages in red). Thus, on each of these three points, the Book of Breathing manuscript conspicuously fails to qualify as the manuscript Joseph described (Nibley, Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham, p. 6 and The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 2-3). (Link)

• Hugh Nibley further observed that one of the three or more original scrolls was described as long enough that when "unrolled on the floor, [it] extended through two rooms of the Mansion House" (Dialogue, vol. 3, no. 2, 1968, p. 101).  (Link)

• {Nibley} also noted that in 1906, Joseph F. Smith remembered 'Uncle Joseph' down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him .... When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can easily be spread out on the top of a small desk ... it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have (Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham, as reprinted in They Lie in Wait to Deceive, p. 243).  (Link) 

• We should also add that only one of the three Abraham facsimiles were among the rediscovered fragments. This fact alone demonstrates that significant portions of the original scrolls are still lost.  (Link)

• Joseph Smith, prophet of the church, examined the several papyrus rolls and, after commencing “the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,” said that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.” In early July of 1835, Joseph Coe, Simeon Andrews, Joseph Smith, and others paid Chandler $2400 for four mummies and at least five papyrus documents, including two or more rolls (see charts on pages 10–13).  (Link)

• Besides the relationship of vignette and text, we also have to ask what portion of the papyri Joseph Smith translated from. Eyewitness accounts describe both the papyri collection and which part of the collection was the source of the Book of Abraham. W. W. Phelps writes of “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.”[10] We can identify five different ancient owners of the papyri from the fragments and facsimiles we have today, which indicates that there were at least five different sets of papyri, at least two of which were scrolls.[11] Other contemporary witnesses describe a number of fragments of papyrus contained under glass[12] (also described as “glazed slides”),[13] a “long roll” on which the Book of Abraham was reported to be written,[14] and “another roll,”[15] thus confirming Phelps’s account of several fragments (adding the information that at some point they had been put in framed glass) and his report of “two papyrus rolls” (specifying that one was longer than the other).  (Link)

• As to size, we can no longer be certain of the rolls’ length. Various methods have been attempted to ascertain their length, but the most accurate likely comes from John Gee’s application of a mathematical formula (which has been used by other Egyptologists) [33] in which the circumference of the roll and how tightly it was wound can be used to calculate its original length. Employing this mathematical formula, Gee has estimated that the scroll anciently owned by Seminis (the shorter roll) would have been about twenty to twenty-four feet long. [34] The longer scroll (which contained Facsimile 1) was anciently owned by a priest named Horus. It is estimated to have been over forty-two feet long. [35] This combined evidence paints a convincing picture that Joseph Smith had a large quantity of papyrus in his possession. Because it t is very common for a papyrus roll to have writing on both sides, a conservative estimate approximates over eighty feet of text on the roll that contained Facsimile 1. These findings indicate that we have only about 2.5 percent of what Joseph originally had. Clearly there was room for the Book of Breathings, the Book of Abraham, and a host of other texts on the long roll. During that time, it was not uncommon to have multiple texts on a single papyrus.  (Link)

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Anyway, as I see it, Ed is following the path of John Tvednes and his mnemonic theory, where he is attempts to tie the EAG with the Book of the Dead, resulting in the Book of Abraham. Let's go over the basics ==>>

This was something that crossed my mind independently about the Book or Mormon--as a fairly new convert and having seen the "Caractors" I wondered how each could represent a word and there still be enough room on the plates (as I understood their size to be) to accommodate all that would be required at a reasonable size for all the words in the book. Never really discussed it with anyone, though, or pursued it.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How do you account for the historical evidences which generally underlie the "Missing Papyrus" theory?  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

Tvedtnes no longer supports the mnemonic theory, and supports the ideas of Gee instead. (personal communication).

Just curious, how is Figure 1 associated with the BOD, which indicates that the latter relates to the Book of Abraham.  I remember reading something on this issue -- something that the Figure 1 is completely unrelated to this papyrus.

Edited November 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Ed Goble]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Ed Goble posts

(Stating a new thread since someone was unhappy with me in the old thread and got me banned from the thread.)

Anyway, as I see it, Ed is following the path of John Tvednes and his mnemonic theory, where he is attempts to tie the EAG with the Book of the Dead, resulting in the Book of Abraham. Let's go over the basics ==>>

This is not how my theory works.  It is not the same as the Mnemonic device theory.  My theory is fundamentally different.  Please don't confuse my theory with the mnemonic device theory.

[Ed Goble]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How do you account for the historical evidences which generally underlie the "Missing Papyrus" theory?

Let me ask you a question.  Methodologically, for John Sorenson, how does he handle the statement about Book of Mormon Geography that Lehi landed in Chile?  Does he create a map with Lehi landing in Chile?  Or does he turn to the text of the Book of Mormon and use its internal evidences?  Which is more reliable?

Why then are FAIRMormon and FARMS/MI scholars willing to have one methodology that they rely on for the Book of Mormon, but have a different one for the Book of Abraham?  Shouldn't the forensic evidence of the Sensen Papyrus and the forensic evidence in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers then have supremacy over these old scattered, unreliable accounts that the Missing Papyrus theory relies on?  Why then is the Missing Papyrus theory better than the Hemispherical Book of Mormon Geography theory, when they both share the same methodology, of quoting old, unreliable statements outside the primary set of evidence?  Isn't this ironic that FARMS/MI scholars would have us dismiss the Hemispherical Geography theory because of the supposed unreliability of its set of evidence, yet they want us to put stock in the same types of sources in order to bolster the Missing Papyrus theory?

Therefore, what is the correct methodology for dealing with the Book of Abraham?  Toss out all the old junk and confine ourselves use the forensic evidence in the Sensen Papyrus and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  The critics of the Church already do this.  They are doing the equivalent for the Book of Abraham that Mesoamericanists are doing for the Book of Mormon.  They know the unreliability of these sources, but Mormons continue to rely on them.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Ed Goble said:

Let me ask you a question.  Methodologically, for John Sorenson, how does he handle the statement about Book of Mormon Geography that Lehi landed in Chile?  

Can you give us the source and the exact quote from Joseph Smith. I guess that would make it a CFR.

I think I know the answer, and it is ==>> "He didn't say it."  Kinda like the "man on the moon" statement, and "Moroni dedicated the spot for the Manti temple" and.....

Edited November 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Ed Goble]

44 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Can you give us the source and the exact quote from Joseph Smith. I guess that would make it a CFR.

I think I know the answer, and it is ==>> "He didn't say it."  Kinda like the "man on the moon" statement, and "Moroni dedicated the spot for the Manti temple" and.....

That's not really the point.  That's going down the rabbit hole when the actual point I was making is, those kinds of reports are all unreliable when they conflict with primary evidence, and the correct methodology is to leave them all behind and concentrate on primary evidence.  If after it is shown that they don't conflict with primary evidence, then people can start to give them consideration.  Otherwise they are just plain garbage.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Ed Goble said:

This is not how my theory works.

Sorry.  I apologize.

[Ed Goble]

34 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sorry.  I apologize.

No problem.

Here is the theory on my blog:

https://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

This was something that crossed my mind independently about the Book or Mormon--as a fairly new convert and having seen the "Caractors" I wondered how each could represent a word and there still be enough room on the plates (as I understood their size to be) to accommodate all that would be required at a reasonable size for all the words in the book. Never really discussed it with anyone, though, or pursued it.

We don't actually know the size of the characters, nor the abbreviated (logographic) nature of reformed Egyptian, but I made some pretty good overall size estimates in my “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 .

[smac97]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

Tvedtnes no longer supports the mnemonic theory, and supports the ideas of Gee instead. (personal communication).

Okay.  But my question pertains to this statement in the OP: "Brian Hauglid ...  is at least of the opinion (which is the same opinion of the critics and of myself)  ... that there was no missing papyrus in modern times."

Hence my question about historical references indicating that Joseph Smith had access to considerably more papyrus than what is now extant ("These findings indicate that we have only about 2.5 percent of what Joseph originally had.").

I am not presently seeking to argue, but rather to understand the position being attributed to Hauglid and shared by Goble.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Ed Goble said:

Let me ask you a question.  Methodologically, for John Sorenson, how does he handle the statement about Book of Mormon Geography that Lehi landed in Chile?  Does he create a map with Lehi landing in Chile?  Or does he turn to the text of the Book of Mormon and use its internal evidences?  Which is more reliable?

I'd rather not go down that rabbit trail (though I would consider participating in a separate thread on that issue if you like).

Quote

Why then are FAIRMormon and FARMS/MI scholars willing to have one methodology that they rely on for the Book of Mormon, but have a different one for the Book of Abraham?  Shouldn't the forensic evidence of the Sensen Papyrus and the forensic evidence in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers then have supremacy over these old scattered, unreliable accounts that the Missing Papyrus theory relies on?  

Is this your position?  That the various historical accounts of Joseph Smith considerable amounts of papyri are to be rejected because the are 1) "old", 2) "scattered" and 3) "unreliable".  What am I missing?  How does "old" = bad (in this instance)?

As to the first ("old"), how does that make these accounts problematic?  If anything, first-hand reports of percipient witnesses would, I think, constitute considerably stronger evidence than second-hand or hearsay accounts.

As to the second ("scattered") I am not sure what this means (other than its plainly pejorative connotation).  It seems by "scattered" you mean "multiple people attesting to the same thing", namely, that there were considerably more amounts of papyri in Nauvoo with Joseph than have survived to the present day (which unaccounted for amounts are therefore "missing").  If anything, multiple witnesses as to there being considerable amounts of papyri would have a corroborative effect, rather than the disproving effect you appear to find.

As to the third ("unreliable"), that's where I get really interested in your position.  Let's re-cap just a few of these purportedly "unreliable" accounts:

• Joseph Smith's described multiple "rolls" of papyrus.  At present, in 2016, we have a few fragments, certainly nothing which could reasonably described as "rolls" of papyrus.
• Joseph Smith described the contents of these "rolls" as being "beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation," which, as Nibley points out, does not fit with the extant fragments ("Hugh Nibley points out that the Book of Breathing text is "entirely different" from the record of Abraham described by Joseph Smith. The Book of Breathing papyri were neither beautifully written nor well preserved and were devoid of rubrics (passages in red).")
• Hugh Nibley cites a source (I'm trying to track it down) indicating that the papyri, if unrolled, "extended through two rooms of the Mansion House."
• Joseph F. Smith's (admittedly much later, but still first-hand) account of "'Uncle Joseph' down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him" would seem to matter.
• W. W. Phelps wrote of “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.”
• Charlotte Haven wrote in 1843 of a “long roll” on which the Book of Abraham was reported to be written, and "another roll" in addition to it.
• Historical records indicate that Joseph Smith paid $2400 "for four mummies and at least five papyrus documents, including two or more rolls."  
• Among the rediscovered fragments we have only only one of the three Abraham facsimiles.

This discussion started with an assertion, namely, that there "that there was no missing papyrus in modern times."

I have asked for an explanation accounting for the plain discrepancy between the foregoing assertion and the historical evidences showing that Joseph Smith had in his possession considerably larger amounts of papyrus than the few fragments that exist "in modern times."

You have dismissed these historical accounts as "unreliable."

What evidence/argument do you have that the various accounts should be so dismissed?

Quote

Why then is the Missing Papyrus theory better than the Hemispherical Book of Mormon Geography theory, when they both share the same methodology, of quoting old, unreliable statements outside the primary set of evidence?  

You appear to be begging the question.  Why are these first-hand statements, made by percipient witnesses, "unreliable"?  With respect, your say-so is not sufficiently definitive for me.

Also, what "primary set of evidence" exists that does not include the historical statements made above?  

Put another way, what evidence do you have that the there is a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments we have now, in 2016 and the papyri Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago?

Quote

Isn't this ironic that FARMS/MI scholars would have us dismiss the Hemispherical Geography theory because of the supposed unreliability of its set of evidence, yet they want us to put stock in the same types of sources in order to bolster the Missing Papyrus theory?

Again, I'd rather not discuss the HGT and its merits or weaknesses.  Critique it all you like elsewhere, but here I'd like to discuss 1) the original assertion you made (namely, that there "that there was no missing papyrus in modern times"), and 2) your subsequent unsubstantiated assertion that numerous first-hand accounts, many of which made contemporaneously by percipient witnesses as to the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession in Nauvoo, are "unreliable."

Quote

Therefore, what is the correct methodology for dealing with the Book of Abraham?  

An interesting question, but before we get to it, I'd like to discuss items 1 and 2 in my preceding paragraph.

Quote

Toss out all the old junk and confine ourselves use the forensic evidence in the Sensen Papyrus and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  

Okay, I'll bite.  What "forensic evidence" is there that there is a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments extant in 2016 and the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 11, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Ed Goble said:

That's not really the point.  That's going down the rabbit hole when the actual point I was making is, those kinds of reports are all unreliable when they conflict with primary evidence, and the correct methodology is to leave them all behind and concentrate on primary evidence.

What "primary evidence" are you referring to here?  You have asserted a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments extant in 2016 and the papyri Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago.  What "primary evidence" do you suppose exists to support the claimed 1:1 correlation?

11 hours ago, Ed Goble said:

 If after it is shown that they don't conflict with primary evidence, then people can start to give them consideration.  Otherwise they are just plain garbage.

Hmm.  Interesting!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ed Goble]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd rather not go down that rabbit trail (though I would consider participating in a separate thread on that issue if you like).

Is this your position?  That the various historical accounts of Joseph Smith considerable amounts of papyri are to be rejected because the are 1) "old", 2) "scattered" and 3) "unreliable".  What am I missing?  How does "old" = bad (in this instance)?

As to the first ("old"), how does that make these accounts problematic?  If anything, first-hand reports of percipient witnesses would, I think, constitute considerably stronger evidence than second-hand or hearsay accounts.

As to the second ("scattered") I am not sure what this means (other than its plainly pejorative connotation).  It seems by "scattered" you mean "multiple people attesting to the same thing", namely, that there were considerably more amounts of papyri in Nauvoo with Joseph than have survived to the present day (which unaccounted for amounts are therefore "missing").  If anything, multiple witnesses as to there being considerable amounts of papyri would have a corroborative effect, rather than the disproving effect you appear to find.

As to the third ("unreliable"), that's where I get really interested in your position.  Let's re-cap just a few of these purportedly "unreliable" accounts:

• Joseph Smith's described multiple "rolls" of papyrus.  At present, in 2016, we have a few fragments, certainly nothing which could reasonably described as "rolls" of papyrus.
• Joseph Smith described the contents of these "rolls" as being "beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation," which, as Nibley points out, does not fit with the extant fragments ("Hugh Nibley points out that the Book of Breathing text is "entirely different" from the record of Abraham described by Joseph Smith. The Book of Breathing papyri were neither beautifully written nor well preserved and were devoid of rubrics (passages in red).")
• Hugh Nibley cites a source (I'm trying to track it down) indicating that the papyri, if unrolled, "extended through two rooms of the Mansion House."
• Joseph F. Smith's (admittedly much later, but still first-hand) account of "'Uncle Joseph' down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him" would seem to matter.
• W. W. Phelps wrote of “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.”
• Charlotte Haven wrote in 1843 of a “long roll” on which the Book of Abraham was reported to be written, and "another roll" in addition to it.
• Historical records indicate that Joseph Smith paid $2400 "for four mummies and at least five papyrus documents, including two or more rolls."  
• Among the rediscovered fragments we have only only one of the three Abraham facsimiles.

This discussion started with an assertion, namely, that there "that there was no missing papyrus in modern times."

I have asked for an explanation accounting for the plain discrepancy between the foregoing assertion and the historical evidences showing that Joseph Smith had in his possession considerably larger amounts of papyrus than the few fragments that exist "in modern times."

You have dismissed these historical accounts as "unreliable."

What evidence/argument do you have that the various accounts should be so dismissed?

You appear to be begging the question.  Why are these first-hand statements, made by percipient witnesses, "unreliable"?  With respect, your say-so is not sufficiently definitive for me.

Also, what "primary set of evidence" exists that does not include the historical statements made above?  

Put another way, what evidence do you have that the there is a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments we have now, in 2016 and the papyri Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago?

Again, I'd rather not discuss the HGT and its merits or weaknesses.  Critique it all you like elsewhere, but here I'd like to discuss 1) the original assertion you made (namely, that there "that there was no missing papyrus in modern times"), and 2) your subsequent unsubstantiated assertion that numerous first-hand accounts, many of which made contemporaneously by percipient witnesses as to the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession in Nauvoo, are "unreliable."

An interesting question, but before we get to it, I'd like to discuss items 1 and 2 in my preceding paragraph.

Okay, I'll bite.  What "forensic evidence" is there that there is a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments extant in 2016 and the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago?

Thanks,

-Smac

I see that you have passion for this issue, and you want to push this beyond a few messages.  I don't, because it goes beyond where I care to spend time on it.

Why?  Because it is a peripheral issue that I don't have interest in.

Let me put it this way.  You are dealing with a person that doesn't have a heck of a lot of passion for or against the Missing Papyrus theory, except for the fact that I don't believe in it.

Why?  Because my theory doesn't stand or fall on where Joseph Smith got the text for the Book of Abraham, whether he got it from an actual papyrus that we don't have. My theory does not really dwell much on the idea of how the text of the Book of Abraham came to be, Missing Papyrus or not.  My position is that Joseph Smith got that by revelation.

It will not hurt my feelings if there does turn out to be a Missing Papyrus.

This is really really hard to communicate to people, but my theory isn't so much about how the text of the Book of Abraham came to be, as much as it is a theory about what the Sensen Papyrus and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are, and what relationship they have to that text.  In other words, my theory is not so much about the Book of Abraham text in particular.  My theory is an attempt to explain what this other stuff is out there that has to do with the Book of Abraham text that the Anti-Mormons spend so much time on.

So, if you want, I would be happy to write an article when I have time to address your concerns here, that you can chew on and accept or reject, but I'm not going to spend time going down this rabbit hole now.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Ed Goble

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

I see that you have passion for this issue, and you want to push this beyond a few messages.  I don't, because it goes beyond where I care to spend time on it.

Why?  Because it is a peripheral issue that I don't have interest in.

Okay.  I have my own views on the significance of the issue (I don't think it is "peripheral"), but I won't press the matter.

13 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

Let me put it this way.  You are dealing with a person that doesn't have a heck of a lot of passion for or against the Missing Papyrus theory, except for the fact that I don't believe in it.

I don't think "passion" is a requirement for explaining one's assessment of historical evidence.

13 minutes ago, Ed Goble said:

This is really really hard to communicate to people, but my theory isn't so much about how the text of the Book of Abraham came to be, as much as it is a theory about what the Sensen Papyrus and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are, and what relationship they have to that text.  In other words, my theory is not about the Book of Abraham text.  My theory is an attempt to explain what this other stuff is out there that has to do with the Book of Abraham text that the Anti-Mormons spend so much time on.

So, if you want, I would be happy to write an article when I have time to address your concerns here, that you can chew on and accept or reject, but I'm not going to spend time going down this rabbit hole now.

To be clear, you affirmatively asserted that "there was no missing papyrus in modern times."  And when asked to explain that statement, to provide evidence/argument pertaining to it, you have refused to do so, and now dismiss it as a "rabbit hole."

I think the presence or absence of what may be 97.5% of the papyrus in Joseph Smith's possession is a very important issue in evaluating the various competing theories of The Book of Abraham.  

Nevertheless, I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things, so I am glad we can conclude our discussion cordially and as friends.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ed Goble]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What "primary evidence" are you referring to here?  You have asserted a 1:1 correlation between the papyrus fragments extant in 2016 and the papyri Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo nearly 200 years ago.  What "primary evidence" do you suppose exists to support the claimed 1:1 correlation?

Hmm.  Interesting!

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, not to spend a lot of time on this issue as I said, but a few things I will answer.  I didn't say there was a 1:1 correlation as you think I did.

We are missing plenty of papyrus that we have evidence for, such as huge missing gobs of the papyrus of the Book of the Dead that we have a few scraps of.  We are also missing Facsimile #3 and the original to the Hypocephalus/Facsimile #2.

When I refer to the "Missing Papyrus," I am not talking about missing parts of papyri that we have evidence for.  The primary evidence I speak of is forensic evidence, not stories.

Let's start from the beginning so we both understand each other:

(1) Abraham wrote a book.  This was the original thing that he wrote.  This is not a mythological or pseudepigraphical book, but it was actually written by Abraham.

(2) Either a copy of this original, or traditions about it came down into the Greco-Roman era into the Alexandria area of Egypt, perhaps, sometime in a range of time perhaps between 400 BC to 200 AD.

(3) During this era above (The Greco-Roman Era) either Egyptian Priests or Jewish Egyptians or Jewish Gnostic Egyptians or Egyptian Syncretists of some kind liked this story and revered Abraham.  These people decided to adapt the Sensen Papyrus and Hypocephalus for Illustrations for the Book of Abraham.  My theory has to do with what these people were doing with these portions of the papyri and how they were using them.  This is a separate concern entirely from text from the original book that Abraham wrote, long before these people started doing this stuff.

(4) At the time of Joseph Smith, he had a set of papyri.  This included at the very least, the Sensen Papyrus, the Hypocephalus, and copies of the Book of the Dead.  These are the papyri we have evidence for (i.e. forensic evidence).

(5) In our day, we have an English representation of the actual ancient text of the Book of Abraham that Abraham himself wrote.  I don't care how that came to be, whether there was yet another papyrus, or by revelation that we got this English text.  I believe that the papyrus that Abraham originally wrote his book on disappeared in antiquity, and all copies have since disappeared as well, and Joseph Smith never had his hands on a papyrus like this.  The evidence, I believe, is that Joseph Smith got this text that Abraham originally wrote by revelation.

(6) In spite of the fact that you have a bunch of accounts that describe what you think are evidence for Joseph Smith having had a papyrus like this, and that you want to argue about them because of your passion for them, I can say, like scientists continually say to Bigfoot researchers, "Where is the body?"  Though you spend a lot of time arguing, the fact remains that your accounts are not evidence of anything, as much as Bigfoot-encounter accounts are not evidence.  We need a body to know that there is a Bigfoot, not stories.  We need forensic evidence of a missing papyrus of this sort to know it existed.  You believe that I ought to spend time responding to each and every part of your arguments for about these things that amount to Bigfoot stories, with all due respect.  I don't see why I should do that, especially because I don't have a lot of interest in that.  And since a body cannot be produced, and the only forensic evidence we have is for the other papyri, a better explanation is that Joseph Smith got that part by revelation.

(7) Mesoamericanists take me to task all the time about my belief in Cumorah in New York, but they choose a different candidate, because I cannot produce evidence of weapons at Cumorah in New York, yet I still believe.  I get it that you want to believe in a Missing Papyrus that Joseph Smith had his hands on that had the Book of Abraham text on it in some ancient language.  But until you can show me something forensic about it, and not just stories, I believe there is a better explanation.  If Mesoamericanists can do this to me, and dismiss my belief on the issue of Cumorah in New York for lack of forensic evidence, I am justified by virtue of that  to also take a similar position with regard to lack of forensic evidence about the Missing Papyrus.  Stories are great, but forensic evidence is actual science.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Ed Goble

[Ed Goble]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I have my own views on the significance of the issue (I don't think it is "peripheral"), but I won't press the matter.

I don't think "passion" is a requirement for explaining one's assessment of historical evidence.

To be clear, you affirmatively asserted that "there was no missing papyrus in modern times."  And when asked to explain that statement, to provide evidence/argument pertaining to it, you have refused to do so, and now dismiss it as a "rabbit hole."

I think the presence or absence of what may be 97.5% of the papyrus in Joseph Smith's possession is a very important issue in evaluating the various competing theories of The Book of Abraham.  

Nevertheless, I think reasonable minds can disagree about such things, so I am glad we can conclude our discussion cordially and as friends.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't dismiss it, but I set it aside for a different time in a different way where I am willing to address it in-depth if you want me to.  I am willing to write an article on my blog about it when I get around to it.

Theories of the Book of Abraham don't need to compete so much if we can agree on what constitutes primary evidence.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ed Goble said:

Again, not to spend a lot of time on this issue as I said, but a few things I will answer.  I didn't say there was a 1:1 correlation as you think I did.

"{T}here was no missing papyrus in modern times" gave me that impression, but I stand corrected.

Quote

We are missing plenty of papyrus that we have evidence for, such as huge missing gobs of the papyrus of the Book of the Dead that we have a few scraps of.  We are also missing Facsimile #3 and the original to the Hypocephalus/Facsimile #2.

I'm glad we could clear that up.

Quote

When I refer to the "Missing Papyrus," I am not talking about missing parts of papyri that we have evidence for.  The primary evidence I speak of is forensic evidence, not stories.

I do not understand why we are constrained from considering "stories" (in other words, testimonial evidence).

Quote

Let's start from the beginning so we both understand each other:

(1) Abraham wrote a book.  This was the original thing that he wrote.  This is not a mythological or pseudepigraphical book, but it was actually written by Abraham.

Okay.  I'm with you so far.

Quote

(2) Either a copy of this original, or traditions about it came down into the Greco-Roman era into the Alexandria area of Egypt, perhaps, sometime in a range of time perhaps between 400 BC to 200 AD.

Okay.  Still with you.

Quote

(3) During this era above (The Greco-Roman Era) either Egyptian Priests or Jewish Egyptians or Jewish Gnostic Egyptians or Egyptian Syncretists of some kind liked this story and revered Abraham.  These people decided to adapt the Sensen Papyrus and Hypocephalus for Illustrations for the Book of Abraham.  My theory has to do with what these people were doing with these portions of the papyri and how they were using them.  This is a separate concern entirely from text from the original book that Abraham wrote, long before these people started doing this stuff.

Okay.  Still with you.

Quote

(4) At the time of Joseph Smith, he had a set of papyri.  This included at the very least, the Sensen Papyrus, the Hypocephalus, and copies of the Book of the Dead.  These are the papyri we have evidence for (i.e. forensic evidence).

But not only "forensic evidence."  We also have historical/testimonial evidence as to the amount of papyri in Joseph's possession (though not, perhaps, the precise nature of the untranslated content of the writings on the papyri).

I guess this may be where our prior misunderstanding occurred.

Quote

(5) In our day, we have an English representation of the actual ancient text of the Book of Abraham that Abraham himself wrote.  I don't care how that came to be, whether there was yet another papyrus, or by revelation that we got this English text.  

Okay.  Still with you.  In the ultimate sense, I quite agree with you.  But it seems we diverge as to our respective measures of interest in the "missing papyri."  

Quote

I believe that the papyrus that Abraham originally wrote his book on disappeared in antiquity, and all copies have since disappeared as well, and Joseph Smith never had his hands on a papyrus like this.  

That is my assessment as well.  I think Nibley was probably correct in his proposal that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” was a part of the original title of the ancient text (see, e.g., here).

Quote

The evidence, I believe, is that Joseph Smith got this text that Abraham originally wrote by revelation.

Okay.  I'm still with you.

Quote

(6) In spite of the fact that you have a bunch of accounts that describe what you think are evidence for Joseph Smith having had a papyrus like this, and that you want to argue about them because of your passion for them, I can say, like scientists continually say to Bigfoot researchers, "Where is the body?" 

First, I'm not particularly interesting in arguing the issue, but in understanding your position.

Second, I think comparisons to Bigfoot are not apt.  Whether Bigfoot exists is a scientific/forensic issue.  How much papyrus Joseph Smith possessed in Nauvoo is decidedly not a scientific/forensic issue.

Third, I do not think we should categorically disregard/ignore testimonial evidence when evaluating historical issues (like how much papyrus Joseph Smith possessed in Nauvoo).

Quote

Though you spend a lot of time arguing, the fact remains that your accounts are not evidence of anything, as much as Bigfoot-encounter accounts are not evidence.  

And this is where we disagree.  Of course Bigfoot encounters are "evidence."  They are just not very good evidence.  They are not probative.  They are not competent.  They are not corroborated.

Historical/testimonial evidence regarding how much papyrus Joseph Smith possessed in Nauvoo is likewise "evidence."  The question is whether the statements I have provided are competent and probative and generally corroborative of each other.  I submit that they are.  

Quote

We need a body to know that there is a Bigfoot, not stories.  

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Historical issues are rarely susceptible to being proven or falsified solely by forensic evidence.  

Quote

We need forensic evidence of a missing papyrus of this sort to know it existed.  

With respect, I disagree.  Again, historical issues are rarely susceptible to being proven or falsified solely by forensic evidence.  

What "forensic evidence" do we have that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln?  Fingerprints on the gun?  Nope.  Gunshot residue on his body?  Nope.  Ballistics?  Nope.  Video footage showing the assassination?  Nope.  

There is a bone-handled dagger which is purported to be the one used by Booth to stab Major Henry Rathbone during a scuffle immediately after he (Booth) shot Lincoln:

Booth is purported to have have jumped from the presidential box to the stage at Ford's Theater, breaking his leg.  He then stood, brandished the above dagger, and shouted "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" ("Thus always to tyrants!", the state motto of Virginia).  But is any of this supported by "forensic evidence"?  Any blood on the blade matching Rathbones?  Nope.  Any custodial/chain-of-custody/provenance issues?  Probably.

And yet despite the near total lack of "forensic evidence" for one of the most important events in American history, is there any reasonable dispute about Booth killing Lincoln?  No.  Why?  Because there is ample non-forensic evidence.  This is why nobody goes around saying things like "We need forensic evidence that Booth assassinated Lincoln," or "The fact remains that historical/testimonial accounts of Booth shooting Lincoln are not evidence of anything, as much as Bigfoot-encounter accounts are not evidence."

Courts of law accept testimonial evidence.  All the time.  Whether such evidence is competent and probative and admissible can vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.  But to suggest that testimonial evidences "are not evidence of anything" seems to strain credulity, particularly when evaluating historical issues that are generally not susceptible to forensic analysis.

Also, I will note that John Gee has presented "forensic evidence" in terms of mathematical estimates of the scroll lengths, which evidence is, I think, broadly corroborated by testimonial/historical evidence.

Quote

You believe that I ought to spend time responding to each and every part of your arguments for about these things that amount to Bigfoot stories, with all due respect.  

Categorically dismissing all testimonial evidence of historical issues as having no more probative value than "Bigfoot stories" seems manifestly unreasonable, to the point of poisoning the well.

Quote

I don't see why I should do that, especially because I don't have a lot of interest in that.  

Well, on this board, a person who presents an assertion that is susceptible to a "call for references" ("CFR") is obligated, by the board rules, to provide such references.

But that is presently neither here nor there.  We apparently agree that there are "missing papyri" ("We are missing plenty of papyrus that we have evidence for...").

Quote

And since a body cannot be produced, and the only forensic evidence we have is for the other papyri, a better explanation is that Joseph Smith got that part by revelation.

I was not disputing the contents of what we now call The Book of Abraham or how those contents came to be written by Joseph Smith.

Quote

(7) Mesoamericanists take me to task all the time about my belief in Cumorah in New York, but they choose a different candidate, because I cannot produce evidence of weapons at Cumorah in New York, yet I still believe.  I get it that you want to believe in a Missing Papyrus that Joseph Smith had his hands on that had the Book of Abraham text on it in some ancient language.  

Actually, no, that is not what I "want to believe."  I am presently open to that possibility, largely because it appears that we only have a very small portion of the papyri which were in Joseph's possession in Nauvoo, and hence cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the original content of what we now have as The Book of Abraham as translated into English by Joseph Smith was, in fact, written on the papyri.  However, I am in no way committed to that possibility.

Quote

But until you can show me something forensic about it, and not just stories, I believe there is a better explanation.  

No need.  I am not interesting in choosing between the competing theories, or in forcing you to do so.

Quote

If Mesoamericanists can do this to me, and dismiss my belief on the issue of Cumorah in New York for lack of forensic evidence, I am justified by virtue of that  to also take a similar position with regard to lack of forensic evidence about the Missing Papyrus.  Stories are great, but forensic evidence is actual science.

Again, how much papyrus Joseph Smith possessed in Nauvoo is not a scientific/forensic issue.

I thank you for your time.  I am glad we have cleared things up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 11, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ed Goble said:

I don't dismiss it, but I set it aside for a different time in a different way where I am willing to address it in-depth if you want me to.  I am willing to write an article on my blog about it when I get around to it.

Theories of the Book of Abraham don't need to compete so much if we can agree on what constitutes primary evidence.

I generally agree with you.  But I think we differ in "what constitutes primary evidence."  I think testimonial evidence of a historical issue that is first-hand, competent, probative, and of sound provenance, should be construed as "primary evidence."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Somple solution to all this drama:

Joseph wrote it as inspired by God.

Look at this highly ambiguous statement in the BOM, in a chapter full of references to a seer named "Joseph"

2 Nephi 3

Quote

 

 11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.

 12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

 

Who are those who have peace among the "fruit of they loins" (the old testament Joseph) by receiving the knowledge of Joseph in the latter days and a knowledge of the Lord's covenants?

Anyone hereabouts "of the tribe of Ephraim" who have received peace in their lives?? Anyone hereabouts know of any covenants about their fathers?   Maybe like Malachi said about turning their hearts to their fathers and making covenants?

Sound familiar?

Joseph wrote it all as inspired by God, and Joseph saw it as a "translation".  That was true of the BOM, the BOA, the Book of Moses, and ALL of the D&C etc and etc.  SEERS "see" beyond what natural eyes see.  We cannot fathom what this marvelous brain saw, with its marvelous conduit to heaven.

They are all scriptures "written" by the chosen seer, like unto Moses, named Joseph.

Either he was a prophet or not.   If he was the flawed human prophet genius I think he was, he had no real need for papyrus, plates, seer stones or anything else.  Perhaps he thought he did in his weakness and lack of self confidence, it doesn't matter to me.

Looking for this wisdom in ancient characters and scholarship misses the point completely in my opinion.  It was Joseph, a flawed human who was touched by God.  Of course he made mistakes.  Of course he was driven and struggling with the blood and sins of his generation.  Welcome to being alive!  One can spend one's life searching hieroglyphics or be out serving the Lord's people- the choice is ours.

Yes it could be self-referential and Joseph boldly bragging about himself, or yes, it could be the word of God.  Or both of those could be two sides of the same coin.

Either you have a testimony or you don't- it's that simple.

If you have a testimony there can be no question- if you don't there can be no answer.

Edited November 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We don't actually know the size of the characters, nor the abbreviated (logographic) nature of reformed Egyptian, but I made some pretty good overall size estimates in my “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 .

Thanks for sharing that... I wonder if some application of the Urim and Thummim helped those with awkward hands to make fine or small characters, especially if they were of a uniform "font" (any idea of how many pages John Whitmer examined?) Joseph apparently didn't use them in preparing the sample characters sheet!

And Martin Harris must have had “old man strength” to estimate 40-50 pounds!

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thanks for sharing that... I wonder if some application of the Urim and Thummim helped those with awkward hands to make fine or small characters, especially if they were of a uniform "font" (any idea of how many pages John Whitmer examined?) Joseph apparently didn't use them in preparing the sample characters sheet!

Do you mean the seer stones of Joseph's?  I know those were later called the Urim and Thummim.  They no longer had the one that came with the golden plates, did they?

[mfbukowski]

Goble said:

Quote

The evidence, I believe, is that Joseph Smith got this text that Abraham originally wrote by revelation

So why do we need anything else beyond this??

All the scholarship in the world will never convince anyone who does not have a testimony of this in the first place, so what is it's purpose?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Goble said:

So why do we need anything else beyond this??

All the scholarship in the world will never convince anyone who does not have a testimony of this in the first place, so what is it's purpose?

I think Michael Ash aptly summed up the role of secular/scientific "evidence" in the life of a Latter-day Saint:

Quote

Secular evidences can’t replace a spiritual witness, but they can support a testimony and provide an atmosphere where a spiritual witness can flourish.

There are people who need to rely, to some extent, on "secular evidences."  I do not begrudge them that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 11, 2016 by smac97